Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Issues Call For Universal Internet Access
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."
I guess he cant make any money of those things....
Then why doesn't Mr Billionaire pay for it?
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
...let them eat cake?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
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
"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.
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...
"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
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.
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?"
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.
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."
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.