Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mark Zuckerberg Issues Call For Universal Internet Access

Posted by samzenpus on from the net-for-the-people dept.

An anonymous reader writes: During the 70th annual U.N. General Assembly session, Zuckerberg discussed the "importance of connectivity in achieving the U.N.'s sustainable development goals. Connecting the world is one of the fundamental challenges of our generation. More than 4 billion people don't have a voice online." Zuckerberg said. Reuters reports: "The connectivity campaign calls on governments, businesses and innovators to bring the Internet to the some 4 billion people who now do not have access, organizers said. Signing on to the connectivity campaign were U2 star Bono, co-founder of One, a group that fights extreme poverty; actress Charlize Theron, founder of Africa Outreach Project; philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates; British entrepreneur Richard Branson; Huffington Post editor Arianna Huffington; Colombian singer Shakira, actor and activist George Takei and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales."

65 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Not universal food, shelter and health care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess he cant make any money of those things....

    1. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd prefer universal birth control myself... look at Africa, it was given massive amounts of assistance from the mid 1980's onwards and all that happened is a doubling of the population from 550M to 1.1Bn with arguably even more suffering.

    2. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer universal birth control myself.

      If you want to start World War 3, go right ahead and try starting a world-wide campaign to control people's reproduction. It's literally at the top of the list of things that will piss people off to the point of violence. On a world-wide scale most people are part of one religion or another and those religions almost universally preach that birth control is bad and wrong and you're sinner if you use it because it's the Will of God (whichever flavor) for the faithful to be fruitful and multiply. Do we need to learn to control our numbers? Absolutely. But humans are still mostly dumb animals when it comes to things like this especially, and the hardwired instinct to reproduce, strong as it is on it's own, is just reinforced by religion, and people will get violent if you stand in the way of it. Sad really that drowning in our own offspring is what's really going to bring about the apocalypse.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    3. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer universal birth control myself.

      If you want to start World War 3, go right ahead and try starting a world-wide campaign to control people's reproduction.

      It's one of those odd things - uncontrolled population will just as likely bring about World War 3.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If you have global communications then your remote 3rd world village can have someone take a correspondence course to become a nurses aid or midwife. You can learn ways to increase crop yields, make your house safer, prevent disease, and get access to family planning info.

    5. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Wrong, the couples having more than 2.1 children each aren't the ones who own the nukes. Those with declining population are the power and money grubbing scum who would start WW III

    6. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I'm responding to you, but there is also an AC who has a similar, if more verbose, response to my comment, which I will cite here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      Now, then.. I agree wholeheartedly with you, and with the AC linked above. Either way, we, as a race of neo-sentients, lose. The only way out of this trap is if we, as a race, evolve past the point where our reproductive instincts aren't in control of our cognition. I wish I could say I see that on the near horizon, but I don't; it may take thousands or tens of thousands of years for us as a race to have our cognitive functions evolve to the point where we control our instincts instead of the other way around, which is what in my opinion is the current state of things.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm responding to you, but there is also an AC who has a similar, if more verbose, response to my comment, which I will cite here:

      Another thing that is very odd about humanities survival. Our intelligence, mixed with our aggressiveness, may end up being our downfall.

      A big smart brain that can invent things is not necessarily agood adaptation whne the inventions may allow us to gleefully push the self destruct button (read those among us who have a belief in end of the world prophecies, and want it to happen as soon as possible.

      Pure conjecture here, but the stupid among us who want to reproduce like bunnies just might be better adapted to survive. They might be all too happy to torture and kill each other for shits and giggles, but since they aren't smart enough to invent weapons that can kill us all at the same time, nature might not even care.

      Not meaning that I would even want that situation, but Mike Judges "ideocracy" premise has some merit even if it gets damn goofy at times.

      I mean, Let's take the people elected president, smart, folks - all politics aside. One or two kids. But on the other end of the spectrum, the Duggars, Octomom, and Jon and Kate + 8 are reproducing voraciously, and no doubt, with more of people just like them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      The only problem I see with what you're saying, is that people who are not smart enough to make WsMD, probably aren't smart enough to develop efficient enough farming techniques to produce enough food to feed the teeming masses of population that they're creating, since they can't control their urge to reproduce, vis-a-vis Idiocracy, where they (comically, but it got the point across) completely sabotaged themselves by watering farmland with salt-laden energy drink instead of plain water. The end result might just be as destructive as if someone pushed the Red Button and turned the Earth into a radioactive cinder, except slower, and without the big boom and all that radiation: endless war over dwindling resources.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    9. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. Headline should be:

      "Man who makes all his money selling online advertising wants more people to see his ads."

    10. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The only problem I see with what you're saying, is that people who are not smart enough to make

      Well that's the part of idiocracy where it gets ridiculous. It's not a genius or idiot choice. There's a whoe range in between. But there are plenty of people who cannot fathom science at all, but can grow crops. They might notever be able to figure out how to build an H-Bomb or design an airplane, but they know how to screw, and reproduce, and that's all nature needs.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Well, my point was that in a future where human population has gone so completely out of control that there's not enough food to go around, if there aren't people around smart enough to develop new techniques or technology to meet the growing need, there will be a crisis, and historically speaking isn't that one of the conditions that triggers war? Can't feed your own people, so go kill your neighbors and take theirs? Then someone else sees the writing on the wall and does it to you. And so on.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    12. Re:Not universal food, shelter and health care? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Hell start with water than someone hasn't shat in would be better.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  2. Then why doesn't Mr Billionaire pay for it? by arfonrg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then why doesn't Mr Billionaire pay for it?

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:Then why doesn't Mr Billionaire pay for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Those listed could easily create the infrastructure, especially as there are massive tax breaks given for such projects. The reality is, these are all mouth-pieces that want more eyeballs to sell more of their crap too. If they were really bothered, they'd start with education and health today, not just more shit to create more consumers.

    2. Re:Then why doesn't Mr Billionaire pay for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't get rich by writing a lot of cheques.

    3. Re:Then why doesn't Mr Billionaire pay for it? by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

      Simple - because the governments won't allow it. Those people that do not have internet are those that are willing to live under economically and socially repressive regimes. If they were left alone they would wire themselves up in a heartbeat (and feed and clothe themselves).

      To kickstart this we need a constellation of low earth orbit networking satellites, together with an airdrop of a billion tablets. Now that would undermine some regimes!

      Note that I use the word "internet" in its strictest sense. No deep packet inspection, no port blocking or protocol clocking, no censorship, no regulations hindering provision of infrastructure. By this metric there are actually very few places that have proper internet.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  3. If there's no bread... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...let them eat cake?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  4. Read all about it by bosef1 · · Score: 1

    "Man with Internet company want more people to have Internet access"

    Yes, I'm being snarky and haven't actually RTFAs.

  5. Energy is the priority by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In poor and developing countries the energy production is the priority. Even before food, clean water, etc. Once you have affordable energy, you can efficiently grow food, clean water or at least produce something you can sell to buy food and water. How will you connect to the internet without energy? How will you run a computer, tablet or cellphone on which you can connect to the internet without energy? How do you plan to connect the remote tribes in Papua New Guinea?

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
    1. Re:Energy is the priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of the things you can use cheap energy for is desalination. Once you have clean water the rest will follow naturally.

    2. Re:Energy is the priority by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      Sorry to said so, but you are an idiot. Cleaning water requires energy, growing food requires energy, working efficiently requires energy. That's were everything starts for these countries struggling with these problems. Where did you read I said the energy is supposed to be an electric outlet for a kid? Nowhere, you are just full of shit.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:Energy is the priority by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Why don't you spend some time talking to someone who has dealt with these issues on the ground?

      This is typically said by someone who hasn't "spent some time..." and posts AC so you can't check that they're being a hypocrite.

  6. It's amazingly simple to have economic growth by trout007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All you need is to have a culture that respects people's private property. Then let's the capital stock naturally grow and people become more productive and wealthier. It's so simple but human greed of wanting to take from others by force has led to so many cultures inability to get past a subsistence level economy.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:It's amazingly simple to have economic growth by trout007 · · Score: 1

      You can't increase productivity without capital

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:It's amazingly simple to have economic growth by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      All you need is to have a culture that respects people's needs. That means people help one another and share resources, and people naturally become more productive and wealthier. It's so simple, but human greed of wanting to have more than your neighbor has led so many cultures to get past a navel-gazing existence.

      You are correct of course, up until some authority arises that forces you to help others against your will. Usually under the guise of rights and freedom. Then it is back to square one.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    3. Re:It's amazingly simple to have economic growth by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      But there are squealing babies in the ghettos to feed? How can you justify building the machinery to make food for them, when what's just needed is to dump today's food on them, which was made... somewhere else... ?

    4. Re:It's amazingly simple to have economic growth by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Any consistent theory of propert rights starts with a person having the best claim to themselves and the products of their labor.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    5. Re:It's amazingly simple to have economic growth by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Those babies aren't squealing because there's no food available, they're squealing because their shit for brains parents won't get it, preferring to satisfy their or immediate wants first.

      During an early hard period of my life I utilized food stamps. They are easy to get and actually a little difficult to get them to turn off. BUT, you have to get off your ass to do it.

      In other words, your argument is moot. Especially as the two activities are not at all mutually exclusive and the first will facilitate the second in short order.

  7. Many issues here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I used to be a "internet-optimist" also believing universal internet access is a good thing, and maybe it is in the longer run.

    But right now, the web is badly broken. Most of these new users Mr. Zuckerberg wants to get online have no clue about the dangers, both cultural and technical. There are efforts by various foundations (eg: Mozilla) to educate new users, but they are hilariously mismatched to the big internet giants who want to siphon of people's privacy for $$$. On top of that you have the Snowden revelations

    I work with many rural communities in India, and often the question of providing internet access comes up. Unlike before, where I would say an unqualified yes, I do not support providing internet unless there is a deep discussion held with the stakeholders. What is (pleasantly) surprising though is that usually the elders in a Village are quite concerned and want to discuss these issues.

    Does Mr. Zuckerberg have it in him to have those discussions?

    1. Re:Many issues here... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      That's basically why he wants them. What good would privacy conscious people do to Facebook?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Many issues here... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I'd say that most of the current users have no clue about the dangers.

    3. Re:Many issues here... by swb · · Score: 1

      But right now, the web is badly broken. Most of these new users Mr. Zuckerberg wants to get online have no clue about the dangers, both cultural and technical. There are efforts by various foundations (eg: Mozilla) to educate new users, but they are hilariously mismatched to the big internet giants who want to siphon of people's privacy for $$$. On top of that you have the Snowden revelations

      I work with many rural communities in India, and often the question of providing internet access comes up. Unlike before, where I would say an unqualified yes, I do not support providing internet unless there is a deep discussion held with the stakeholders. What is (pleasantly) surprising though is that usually the elders in a Village are quite concerned and want to discuss these issues.

      As much as the technology community and a lot of political voices (all over the spectrum) are supportive of the disruptive political nature of the Internet, in the West we mostly do disruptive change with only a token level of on-the-ground chaos and violence. I think we greatly discount the ability to process disruptive change in countries with longstanding traditional cultures and marginally functional political processes. Population growth alone has pushed a lot of people into African cities with a lot of negative externalities in terms of poverty and disgruntled idle bodies able and willing to join whatever revolutionary movement comes down the pike.

      It doesn't surprise me that village elders would have questions. Partly due to just general wisdom, partly due to caution and partly due to concern over their status and position.

  8. No problem by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pay for it, bitch!

    Nobody keeps you from giving everyone free internet. But it's the usual "socialize cost, privatize revenue", isn't it?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Please don't focus just on Africa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're probably going to get modded down, but you're absolutely right.

    However, it isn't just Africa that needs to be focused on.

    Just look at the disaster that Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghanis are causing in Europe at the moment.

    There should not be any children among this group.

    Given that Afghanistan and Iraq have been under war or war-like conditions for over a decade now, and Syria for at least half a decade, there is no reason for anyone in those regions to have reproduced over the last 5 to 10 years.

    A warzone is the last kind of environment that any sensible, caring, conscientious parent would dare bring a child into!

    Yet we see some young children among the groups of people trespassing in Europe, including some born during while on the move.

    Not having children while living in a warzone is the only responsible option available.

    Having children while living in a warzone is a supremely irresponsible, disgusting, idiotic thing to be doing to the children.

    1. Re:Please don't focus just on Africa. by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Where do you think you get more soldiers?

  10. What a laudable bunch of nitwits by vikingpower · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bono. C. Theron. Shakira. Branson.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  11. the hell you say by steak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the guy who makes money from people giving his website all their personal information, wants everyone to have internet access? color me surprised.

    --
    lose != loose
  12. Re:/facepalm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think GP already listed a few.

  13. Self-serving? by ortholattice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "More than 4 billion people don't have a voice online."

    He really means "More than 4 billion people don't have access to Facebook, its tracking icons, and its ads." And he wants the gov't to pay for it.

    1. Re:Self-serving? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      "More than 4 billion people don't have a voice online."

      He really means "More than 4 billion people don't have access to Facebook, its tracking icons, and its ads." And he wants the gov't to pay for it.

      If it comes with the side effect of open information then I'm all for it.

  14. Re:Why not by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It's how capitalism works today. Don't have to look any further than banks and other "too big to fail" parasites.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Hi I'm Mark Zuckerberg by Coditor · · Score: 1

    ... and I need more people to use Facebook so my advertisers give me more money to ensure my stock doesn't go down.

    1. Re:Hi I'm Mark Zuckerberg by KGIII · · Score: 2

      You know what would be awesome? If he were on Slashdot, trolling the hell out of us, right now. Probably he'd be posting as AC (or have a low UID) and making comments about this being a money grab. It'd be funny as hell.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Hi I'm Mark Zuckerberg by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Probably bought it - just to piss you off.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  16. If tech companies spent as much money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...on basic human needs such as clean water, a sustainable food production, a better and cleaner environment, and equal rights for all, and also industrialisation that doesn't end up using the poorer people of the world as de-facto slave labor, as they do on spreading the internet to harvest people's private information, then the world would be a better place.

    Also, the UN is cultivating its own irrelevance just by listening to this bullcrap.

  17. politically correct causes for celebrities . by swell · · Score: 2

    All these celebrities have their Public Relations advisers who tell them which are the politically correct causes of the moment. Diseases, for instance, should draw sympathy but not too much repulsion; thus you will not see oozing ebola corpses or other rotting flesh in their promotional advertisements. Yes, a hungry child or crutch-using victim of Glaubner's disease can make an interesting poster ad. Fashions come and go among charitable promoters and unfortunately few currently support malaria and other major killers because other causes make more headlines.

    Celebrities have to strike a delicate balance between playing toward your sympathy, making them look heroic, and avoiding the impression of pandering and making them look arrogant. It's safe for them to promote puppies, breast cancer and internet-for-all.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  18. Millions think Facebook is the Internet .. by nickweller · · Score: 2

    "More than 4 billion people don't have a voice online."

    @ortholattice: 'He really means "More than 4 billion people don't have access to Facebook, its tracking icons, and its ads." And he wants the gov't to pay for it.' ref

    Millions of Facebook users have no idea they’re using the internet

  19. Re:/facepalm by Archtech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes.

    "More than 4 billion people don't have a voice online."

    Translation: "More than 4 billion people are currently ineligible to give me their personal data, so I can sell it and become even more immensely rich". (Why???) "I would like governments (or anyone) to pay for those people to be connected to the Internet, so that I can start making money out of them".

    After all, that's what governments are for - making the immensely rich even immensely richer. Isn't it?

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  20. Re: /facepalm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how the rest of the world regards the west' fascination with celebrities.

    In the general assembly:

    "Who is that man speaking?"

    "He sings in a popular musical group."

    "Okay, but what does he know about communications? Is he an engineer? A scientist?"

    "No, he just sings."

    "Then why are we listening to him?"

  21. Give a Man A Fish... by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    Give a man an Internet, he'll watch porn all day and forget to eat. Teach a man to Internet, and he'll start setting up porn sites with AdSense and eat for a lifetime.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  22. Re: /facepalm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Then why are we listening to him?"

    To be fair, most people who hear U2 also say this.

  23. Re: /facepalm by ememisya · · Score: 1

    Bono was on there? Sign me up, in this day and age parts of Africa still have children without Internet access.

  24. Re:/facepalm by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Yes and no.

    The desire of the corporation to make more profits is not incompatible with the desire of people to have greater benefit in their lives. A world where Facebook is the only website accessible would be a nightmare. But on the other hand if he offers open internet with the hope that some people will convert to Facebook then more power too him. The benefits of open information outweigh any negative feelings I have about this ultimately being a goal to please shareholders.

  25. I bet by Tsolias · · Score: 1

    food would be better, but if you advertise it well they'll be convinced that internet is more important.

  26. not Zuckerberg's priority by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Of course not. If Zuckerberg had started a company like Blue Apron, Toll Brothers, or Blue Cross I am sure he would be asking for universal food, shelter, or healthcare.
    Unfortunately, Facebook's profits are tied to the number of subscribers---and they all need access to the internet.

  27. Re:Universal? by ASDFnz · · Score: 1

    Don't be silly.

    As we all know universal means the USA.

  28. Re:Oh, the irony by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    if they dont have the internet, something tells me they might need need other things more. like shelter...food...clothes....

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  29. Re:Universal? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    You're misinterpreting Zuckerberg's use of "universal". When taken in context, what Mr Zuckerberg meant by "universal" is "anyone who advertising companies would pay me money for information about".

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  30. Re:/facepalm by erp_consultant · · Score: 2

    Zuck and Bono - talk about birds of a feather. Sanctimonious pricks the both of them. Zuckerberg is obviously self serving. The more people connected to the internet the more facebook users and more money he makes. Pretty simple equation.

    Bono is a bit more sly about it. He is the guy that always shows up at the cause of the day asking for everyone else's money. Of course he never gives any of his own money. Nooooo...he's a big star and just showing up, well, that's his contribution. Never mind that he has 10's of millions of dollars. What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine.

    Meanwhile U2 has set up operations in a tax haven in the Netherlands to avoid paying their fare share of taxes. Not that that will stop him from lecturing evil corporations doing exactly the same thing he is. Or laying guilt trips on us about his cause of the day, ignoring for the moment that he made more money last year than I will make in my entire life.

    Fuck you Bono.

  31. Saddly: not counted websites. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    A world where Facebook is the only website accessible would be a nightmare.

    Say hello to data plans where some social networks aren't counted toward the limited monthly data usage. (e.g.: WhatsApp isn't counted on data usage for several european phone providers).
    It probably makes sense from an engineering point of view (i suspect that Facebook (=WA owners) have put WhatsApp servers locally at the service providers and thus communicate directly between the service provider and whatsapp, without get counted on the service provider interconnection to the local backbone. the same logic that pushes netflix to install local caches at ISP data centers. maybe I'm wrong, but that seems realistic) (also WhatsApp is a ridiculously small amount of data anyway, so it's not like there's much risk taken by the service provider) but in the long term, it's easy to see the dangers to where it might be going.

    You can bet that Facebook might attempt the same in developing nations (put Facebook servers at the phone company's data centers, to minimize their outband cost). Then you can bet that their main information accessible would be the few websites that are not counted in the data plan.
    Why try to use Wikipedia when you need to subscribe to a dataplan that's equivalent a whole day's worth of food with your bying power, when you could get Facebook for free ?

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  32. Re:/facepalm by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    Plus: There are more than 4 billion people that I can believe I can pay $.01 per day to code for me.

  33. Re:/facepalm by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Yes.

    "More than 4 billion people don't have a voice online."

    Translation: "More than 4 billion people are currently ineligible to give me their personal data, so I can sell it and become even more immensely rich". (Why???) "I would like governments (or anyone) to pay for those people to be connected to the Internet, so that I can start making money out of them".

    After all, that's what governments are for - making the immensely rich even immensely richer. Isn't it?

    It is not greed that drives these people, particulary Zukerberg. Connectivity may actually stop conflict. With connectivity, I am hoping that the third world will obtain access to on-line learning, knowledge about democracy, medicine and other information that will stop famine and wars.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  34. Social Justice or More Users Needed? by GPTurismo · · Score: 1

    Zuckerberg: "All your face belong to us"

  35. Not if you understand where he's coming from by golodh · · Score: 1
    Just consider this: Facebook's popularity is waning among the latest generations of teenagers.

    See e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... and http://www.zdnet.com/article/y...

    People are (at last) getting tired of facebook. That means: less growth, a user-base that isn't rejuvenating at the same rate as it could, and the spectre of *gasp* declining numbers of acebook users.

    Bad news for a company that just supplies a fashionable fad (as opposed to something that people actually need) and which derives revenues from advertising and resale of its users'(private) information for marketing purposes don't you think?

    So it's time for a little executive involvement in keeping those warm bods signing up.

    "We're getting a smaller slice of the cake? Well then .. let's make the cake bigger!"

    Aha! We need more Internet users!

    Cue Zuckerberg's public appeal to the UN: "more Internet users please, it's practically a Human Right!"

    Besides, it's the easiest way to get more Facebook users and it doesn't cost Facebook a dime (it's supposed to be tax money that pays for increased Internet access you see).

    Seen this way it's the most natural thing for mr. Zuckerberg to do. And food, shelter and healthcare? Meh. He's not active in those markets, is he?