Zuckerberg Defends 'Free Basics' App With Comparison To Hospitals, Education (indiatimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has been under heavy criticism for distributing its "Free Basics" app in areas of the world that have less-developed communications infrastructure. The app essentially provides free access to a limited selection of internet sites. Free Basics was recently banned in India over net neutrality concerns. Mark Zuckerberg has now published a response in the Times of India.

He says, "We have collections of free basic books. They're called libraries. They don't contain every book, but they still provide a world of good. We have free basic healthcare. Public hospitals don't offer every treatment, but they still save lives. We have free basic education. Every child deserves to go to school. And in the 21st century, everyone also deserves access to the tools and information that can help them to achieve all those other public services, and all their fundamental social and economic rights. That's why everyone also deserves access to free basic internet services."

Facebook and Internet.org are also fighting the bad publicity elsewhere online, and even in local newspapers. "In essence, Facebook is claiming that since people quickly move on from Free Basics, it's less of a threat as a restricted replacement to the neutral Internet, and is more of a stepping stone to it."

Comments

Dishonest comparing it to a library

[vux984]

"He says, "We have collections of free basic books. They're called libraries. They don't contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.

The library isn't restricted in what books it carries. Not having all of them is primarily a physical space and economic limitation -- if they could carry all of them they would.

And the books they choose to carry is determined by criteria that is not simply a short list made by their corporate sponsors.

In contrast the restrictions with his internet access are entirely arbitrary and self serving. There is no valid comparison to be made.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Lunix Nutcase]

Plus libraries and hospitals aren't selling private info to advertisers.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[sphealey]

Public libraries too are generally run by people with a professional and personal dedication to providing the widest possible selection of information and viewpoints possible within their budgets, not the narrowest.

sPh

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[TheRaven64]

And libraries will also buy books if people who go to the libraries want them, without requiring the publisher to do anything. This is exactly the opposite of the 'Free Basics' stuff, where the consumer only gets things where the producer has explicitly opted in. His views on what public schools and hospitals provide is more a depressing commentary on how backwards the USA is than anything else.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

Libraries make people smarter and improve individuals and societies. On the other hand, Facebook...

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Ichijo]

The library isn't restricted in what books it carries...if they could carry all of them they would.

If only that were true.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

If public is great and private is bad, why does everyone in your Socialist Queendom of England have such terrible teeth?
--
roman_mir

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, right. This clown isn't altruistic, he simply wants to spew web advertising to the entire planet, at the expense of folks too poor to otherwise afford the Internet.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If he wanted the 'library' comparison, he'd need better evidence that there is a "librarian" involved.

Libraries are, ultimately, beholden to the desires of their funding organizations; but 'librarian' is one of those funny jobs, like 'teacher', 'doctor', and 'flight crew where they are supposed to serve "the customer"; but sometimes serving the customer means telling them to GTFO and let us do our job.

A given library can't drift too far from the objectives it was set up to fill(a K-12 collection is going to be expected to have some research materials aligned with the district's curriculum; plus a selection of child and young-adult literature deemed to fall within the intersection of 'likely to be popular' and 'worth having kids read'; a university library had better have the relevant journals and materials to support the work of the students and faculty, a public library needs to cater to a mixture of popular taste and availability of material deemed particularly worthwhile); but within the scope of the mission, the librarians are generally accorded broad leeway to exercise their professional judgement; and challenges to their decisions are supposed to be made in terms of accusations that they aren't upholding the library's objectives properly; not simple demands that the library cater to somebody's whim. "Circulation records indicate that this 'popular fiction' was last checked out in 1992; is it really the best use of limited shelf space?" is a perfectly valid question. Sounds like the librarian hasn't been keeping up with the collection properly. "Concerned Citizens For Decency want this obscenity away from the children!" not so much.

I don't think that there is much doubt that Facebook is doing this because it is good for Facebook, or they suspect that it is; but if they want to latch on to the highflown ideals of 'library' there are some concrete things they can do, even if the project remains their pet. Who are the 'librarians' of this library? What criteria do they use when deciding what does and doesn't go on the shelves? If I want to argue that X should be included, according to the criteria they claim to uphold, who do I talk to?

Then there is the more fundamental question: a library is, necessarily, a 'curated' sort of operation because it has finite resources, finite space, and staff expertise concerning the collection is considered a valuable feature. You can 'curate' down a selection of the internet if you want, just as you can the universe of books that are published; but why are you doing so? Obviously data transmission costs money, and more/faster transmission costs more money, so you can't expect people with approximately zero money to get screaming 4GLTE-and-special-sauce unlimited connections at prices they can afford; but if this "Free Basics" stuff is economically tenable; why is it access to a limited subset of the internet; rather than the entire internet, at whatever speed is low enough to be affordable?

Sure, Facebook isn't about to subsidize some random peasant's youtube habit; but if their "Free Basics" were 'whatever you want, at a crawl', rather than 'stuff we pick for you', that would both provide an incentive for users of "Free Basics" to stick to the basics, since sites not designed to cater to their network and hardware limitations are just going to suck; but also dodge a whole lot of unpleasant questions about the motives, selection process, etc. of the "basics" provided.

If they are willing to be honest about this being a straightforward grab for the developing world's eyeballs, in cooperation with local telco monopolies that would prefer that the cost of commodity bandwidth stay nice and high, then they can do whatever they can get past the local regulatory entities. If they want to pretend that this is some kind of humanitarian project, though, there are some pretty obvious steps they could take, but haven't, to clear things up.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Do you suspect that he believes that this is what schools and hospitals do; or do you suspect that he is using the ever-popular "present what you want to be the case as though it already is, whenever possible, as part of working to bring reality into conformity with your desires" strategy?

There certainly are people who enjoy an utterly sincere fundamental misunderstanding; but there are also people who know exactly what the current objective is; and simply want to radically alter it.

Re: Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the teeth that all recent studies say are much better than Americans teeth?

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[thegarbz]

And the books they choose to carry is determined by criteria that is not simply a short list made by their corporate sponsors.

Even corporate sponsored results can be better than providing nothing at all.

I'm always reminded of my grandpa's stories from the war. There was no choice, there was oppression. People were not free to do what they want, obtain reading materials they want, and even learn what they want. Heck jobs in general were bad. So what did he do? Joined the Hitler Youth. Once he did their life was in his control and 70 years later he proclaimed it as the best decision he ever made, and under the oppression of someone telling him exactly what to learn and what to think he learned skills that served him throughout the remainder of his life, flying and fixing air-planes, something that he never thought would have been open to him otherwise.

So if my choices were sit in the mud or surface the Internet According to Facebook then sign me up to the latter.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[laurencetux]

Wanna Bet???

im sure most will actually follow both the letter and spirit of the existing law but

What they can "get away with" is the standard practice

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Jawnn]

The library isn't restricted in what books it carries. Not having all of them is primarily a physical space and economic limitation -- if they could carry all of them they would.

And the books they choose to carry is determined by criteria that is not simply a short list made by their corporate sponsors.

This! Zuckerberg's comparison is at best, naive. More likely, it is deliberately disingenuous, attempting to obscure the glaring truth that Facebook aims to make money off of the thing. If you want to make a buck, that's fine. Just don't try to sell it with transparent bullshit like this, Mark.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[vux984]

Context please. It "ended up on 'a' banned book list?

WHAT banned book list? And who uses that list?

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[hoggoth]

> So what did he do? Joined the Hitler Youth. Once he did their life was in his control and 70 years later he proclaimed it as the best decision he ever made,

LOL! So, your *PRO-ZUCKERBERG* statement is that using Facebook services is like joining the Hitler Youth?
Marketing genius!

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

Not with libraries. You're talking about the people who, when they started getting requests for book borrowing records by law enforcement, stopped keeping records of what books someone had borrowed, and started only recording who currently has a book. They also routinely tell cops to fuck off until they have a warrant.

They're not just another bunch of sleazeballs trying to make money by "disrupting" an industry and selling off your information to advertisers. Libraries don't give a flying fuck about profit. They're one of the few pure institutions in this world.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

As with any group of people there will be some quislings among librarians. But as a whole they are very privacy focused.
Here is a summary of the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[jedidiah]

Also, more sophisticated libraries SHARE books. Certainly with the college level libraries Inter Library Loans are very common. You quite literally CAN have ANY book you want.

Zuckerburg is quite obviously talking self-serving bullshit. It doesn't matter if he's ever been in a real library or not. He will simply act like it because it suits his agenda.

Trying to compare his little walled garden to a hospital just makes him look like a giant robber baron jackass.

Re: Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

What studies would say that when everyone knows it's wrong?

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

Context please. It "ended up on 'a' banned book list?

WHAT banned book list? And who uses that list?

Why the one the local community leaders set up to "protect our children", of course!

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[DriveDog]

Exactly. Zuckerberg knows that in general libraries that offer any connectivity DO offer the entire Internet.

Re: Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

If by all you mean one, a study that had a significantly smaller American sample size than the one from the UK when at minimum it should have been half again as large, as well as considering removed wisdom teeth, something many Americans get done as a matter of course at some point in their lives as a routine preventative matter, a sign of poor dental health, then yes.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[vux984]

Why the one the local community leaders set up to "protect our children", of course!

Not my local community. Or perhaps even if it was some local community leaders the actual libraries aren't paying it any attention.

So context please. Is this some national banned books list, statewide? Some podunk community public library? Banned by some school district? Or just one K-6 school?

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[mysidia]

Plus libraries and hospitals aren't selling private info to advertisers.

And they're not in the business of selling anything. You can't go to a library and ask for a LIBRARY PREMIUM membership, that includes access to the entire collection.

There's no such thing as library non-members or BASIC members having access to browser only a portion of the works available.

Restrictions only exist in special libraries, such as those of research institutions or research archives that don't allow non-approved members any access at all.

And on special works unique to the library itself, so called restricted collections that contain items restricted to either protect confidential or potentially injurious information, or ensure research access, or prevent damage or theft of high-value materials.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Sparowl]

Wanna Bet???

Sure do!

In the library system I work for, which serves roughly 240k patrons, we keep almost no information about a patron's activity, so that we can't hand it over. Their checkout history only keeps information on the last item they borrowed, and item records only keep anonymous information, i.e. how many times it has been checked out.

We also offer computer usage. We do not record any information regarding what websites patrons go to, and once a session is ended, the computer is reset to a previous save state (we use a program called Deep Freeze to manage it all). In fact, on a few occasions we have had relevant police requests for search history on patron usage (things like child porn do get searched for), and we've been unable to comply, because we don't have the information in order to give it to them. Sometimes they'll take the hard drive to try and recover information, but so far I haven't heard of them managing to do anything with it.

With all that in place, we certainly aren't selling information to advertisers.

(If we are, our budget certainly isn't reflecting it. Trust me, you don't go into the library system to make money.)

So, what did you want to bet?

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a retarded and stupid argument to make when trying to provide everyone with free internet, for free.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[tlhIngan]

Trying to compare his little walled garden to a hospital just makes him look like a giant robber baron jackass.

Well, except hospitals are paid for by taxpayers, so the "free healthcare" really isn't. (Though single payer healthcare has many benefits).

You have to remember that "Free basics' is just that - completely free (beer) access to the walled garden. You don't pay a single cent for data in the walled garden. Sure you;re limited to what you can do, buy someone else is paying for it, and they get to say what you see.

If you don't like that, go for a competitor offering a similar service. I mean, everyone is criticizing Zuckerberg for offering FREE walled garden access. How come those people aren't offering FREE internet access then?

It's free. You don't have to take it, you can pay for regular internet access (probably cost you most of your monthly salary). Or you can just take the limited access, but use your money for other things.

And yes, if it's free, you're the product. But your choices are limited outside contact, a walled garden but some internet access, or full internet access at the cost of starving or not making rent.

It seems critics think no internet access at all is better than limited for free. But it's not mutually exclusive, either - you can ignore the free limited internet offering and continue like you always have, or take the offering. Or let competition work - the critics can offer their version of internet access for free and force Facebook and Zuxkerberg to improve their offering.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[thegarbz]

Yes, yes it is. Both are horrible when it comes to the freedom of the general public. Yet both provide at least something that would otherwise not be there.

By the way I'm not Pro-Zuckerberg. His comparisons to libraries is as absurd as the GP pointed out.
I am however pro-Free-Basics even if it has only corporate tie-ins.

Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library

[KGIII]

Some years back, I had an OC12 in my connection closet that fed my server room. I'd stumbled across an inbound call router on eBay. In the interest of learning new things, we had the inbound call router connected and firewalled from the local network. If you knew the number and had a user/password (we built it all with older equipment) then you could call in and have free dial-up internet access. I don't actually have any idea how many people used it because it was the techs that took care of it all and handed the accounts out to friends and family.

I no longer own a connection closet with an OC12 and my server room is just a small rack in my basement at home and some colo equipment. It was kind of fun for a while. They were not going to allow that to remain enabled when I sold, there's no chance in hell and I didn't even ask. I still have that inbound call router, somewhere.

There are a total of 6 houses that have full-time residents in my unincorporated township. I've managed to save a good portion of the 'net over the years and can reconstruct a bunch of it or, at least, provide similar services. If SHTF and things go downhill, well, my neighbors and I will still have internet of some type or the other, at least eventually. Considering that it will have hit the fan, we might just be able to use radio and not have to worry about the FCC. I'm reasonably well equipped to do such but I lack the domain knowledge to do so. I'm reasonably certain that I can learn.

That said, I have no idea why the people on here feel entitled to free internet. As much as I personally don't prefer the site, I'm quite certain that some is better than none and I'm quite certain that this company is free to offer this free service and the various caveats - up to, and including, informed consent and tracking of user data. That includes ads, that includes walled-gardens, that includes even limited protocols and the likes. I don't want such services but I have no problem with them being offered as a choice for those who might otherwise have nothing. For me, it seems more like television. You don't have a right to view HBO. This is someone offering television in exchange for some metrics. They are not going to give you every channel for free. You'll have to pay for the additional channels.

"everyone...deserves"

[turkeydance]

resembles a car dealer's tag line in an advertisement. "get the car you deserve..."

Re:"everyone...deserves"

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that comes out of these cynical m/billionaires fakelithropists good doers is nothing but bait to gain profit somehow.

If he gave a shit he'd use his money to employ those in need with decent living wages (well above minimum wage of say +%50 where a small family of 3 shouldn't worry about paying mortgage and basic living expenses and the kid doesn't have to be living in near constant bombardment of discussions between the parents etc...) and build infrastructures and other basic goods industry and services along the path.

Instead we get around monthly "dear diary" empty blurbs that carry zero weight.

Re:"everyone...deserves"

[Anonymous Coward]

As Maynard James Keenan would say: "We're so far away from the reality of what it means to survive, and buying into the polarized crap that goes on in the political arena, and also caught up in what you think you deserve. "I deserve free shipping!" You know? It's just so disconnected with real life, and what it takes to survive. And maybe because I grew up on a farm, and maybe because I've done that work and maybe because I live in Arizona, where everything will kill you if you're not aware... maybe I just have a different perspective than most people. Kids that spend all the time on their phone have no idea that it's raining — they have to wipe the water off of their screen to check and see if it's raining on their fucking app!"

Fuck Fuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course he's mad. This was the bottom floor to begin tracking and monetizing new people. Facebook, and subsequently its stock price, can't grow much larger without fresh product to sell.

When you control internet you control information

[Joe_Dragon]

When you control the internet you control information.

Sure, free basics

[buchner.johannes]

Just do something that is company-independent. For example provide free internet for everyone at 56k speed. Or provide web-only (not internet).

But preference of one companies' service (Wikipedia, I am also looking at you) is destroying equal opportunity for the next Google/Wikipedia/Facebook.

comparing two different things

[Anonymous Coward]

The hospital may not be able to cure everything, but that doesn't mean they won't try if they can. Oh, unless you're in the USA... then the hospital will ask for your money first. Also, Libraries in the USA don't carry every book because it's physically impossible, but most libraries have an extensive eBook selection now. And they also don't limit your internet access either(well, not counting porn that is). Plus, if the library doesn't have a book they will get another library to send it to you. So his arguments are full of shit.

He's arguing against himself

[Anonymous Coward]

So if free internet is a basic right... then why not make it public and transparent? Why should they have to go through Facebook and all it's tracking and advertisements to get it?

Re:He's arguing against himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuckerberg needs his taste of the pie.

Bad comparison

[dpidcoe]

We have collections of free basic books. They're called libraries. They don't contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.

What Zuckerberg apparently fails to realize is that libraries don't see their users as a product, and generally don't have a vested interest in keeping their users away from the local bookstore and other non-library sanctioned locations. Because users are facebooks product, it creates a massive conflict of interest.

Re:Bad comparison

[towermac]

Mr. dpidcoe is still correct. You pointing out that politicians also see us as a product changes nothing.

Re:Bad comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Using this "pass the buck" logic doesn't mean that libraries aren't keen on trying to bolster the number of users they appeal to over what is morally and ethically best for the community. I'm not saying they go all out to break the basic tenants of their vocation but I'm sure they're not beyond using popular culture to appeal to the masses.
 
But there probably is not answer that would satisfy you given that this is Slashdot and Zuckerberg is a target of Slashvenom.
 
enjoy your two minutes hate.

Re:Bad comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh he realizes it alright; he's just shoveling more shit.

Re:Bad comparison

[AthanasiusKircher]

What Zuckerberg apparently fails to realize is that libraries don't see their users as a product, and generally don't have a vested interest in keeping their users away from the local bookstore and other non-library sanctioned locations.

"...fails to realize..."? No, he's just failing to acknowledge such differences, because they would be detrimental to Facebook's business model if too many people thought too much about what he's really doing.

Next thing you'll be claiming that a used-car salesman doesn't actually " realize" that he's making a major profit off some clunker if you buy it at his price, or that the diet pill guy doesn't "realize" that the pills don't really work, or that the TV evangelist doesn't "realize" that by sending him money for "prayers" that you're really just paying for the TV preacher's private jet.

Re:Bad comparison

[dpidcoe]

Sure, if you want to get pedantic about it.

No Zucks, We don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

We do not have free basic healthcare. That's one of the major problems with the US. The fact you don't know this means you need to stop trying to save the world until you learn a little more about it.

You know, educate yourself n shit.

Re:No Zucks, We don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

You presume Fuckerberg cares about facts. He's lived a priviledged life. All he cares about here is the lost chance at more product to sell to his customers.

Re:No Zucks, We don't.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

We kinda-sorta do; but in the most half-assed way possible. If you show up in the ER in sufficiently dreadful condition, they are obligated to at least pretend that they've provided the necessary acute care(there are various ways to...expedite...the less desireable customers; but you have to weasel around and keep up appearances) you can't just move them to the designated dying section of the parking lot. Anything less serious than that, though, go wait for it to get worse, then come back when it's an emergency.

Re:No Zucks, We don't.

[dcollins117]

And .... it's not free, either. They will bill you for it. I've racked up some impressive ER/hospital bills in my day.

There might be a free clinic near you if you live near a big city but saying healthcare is free in America is like saying food is free because some charities run soup kitchens.

Another point of contention I have with Zuckerbergs' statement is that public scools and libraries also are not free. They are paid for with taxes.

Re:No Zucks, We don't.

[jedidiah]

Free basic healthcare is nothing that ANY working person can't afford. If you're whining about free professional services for anyone except welfare recipients, you really have less than no clue.

You're simply a manifestation of consumerism where paying for overpriced coffee is fine but paying a doctor is some great tragedy.

Free what?

[fahrbot-bot]

We have free basic healthcare.

Uh, in the US? Since when? Unless you mean being poor/uninsured and having hospital ERs pass the cost along to others. Perhaps rich white dudes, like Zuckerberg, and I have different definitions of the word "free".

Re:Free what?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have free basic healthcare.

Uh, in the US? Since when? Unless you mean being poor/uninsured and having hospital ERs pass the cost along to others. Perhaps rich white dudes, like Zuckerberg, and I have different definitions of the word "free".

How could you offer healthcare to the needy unless it came from the taxes of the wealthier classes Letting charities or Churches worry about it is not enough. Either you let people die in the street, or you decide that a basic part of humanity is to care for others who cannot care for themselves. I don't like to be taxed any more than you do, but I could not drive down the street and see bodies on the road. So I pay my tax and try not to be bitter about the successes I've had in life.

Re:Free what?

[DigiShaman]

"Free". He doesn't understand the meaning of the word that he thinks he does. In reality, health and education is, at best, subsidized labor of others; and even then it's abused to the point of being organized theft of said labor.

Zuckerberg is a disgrace (among meany reason) for bastardizing the meaning of words.

Re:Free what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the guy who will call the police or fire services when needed that are both paid for by that "organized theft". Just another hypocritical libertardian.

Re:Free what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only free if you have enough power to buy lawyers to sue the hospital.
Being famous enough allows you to not have to do much threatening to get your way.
Hence health care is free for the powerful.

Re:Free what?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have a Johnny-on-the-spot COP instantly available in a rich neighborhood, but purposefully ignore victims the ghetto (or outright turn them into victims for being black), I'd say it's theft of the rich taking from the poor. So FUCK OFF ac!

Re:Free what?

[BitZtream]

Uh, in the US? Since when? Unless you mean being poor/uninsured and having hospital ERs pass the cost along to others. Perhaps rich white dudes, like Zuckerberg, and I have different definitions of the word "free".

So yes, we do have 'free basic healthcare' by your own words.

How do you think 'free health care' is paid for in other countries? Do you think those people don't get paid or do you think they just pay it in taxes ... kind of like you pay it in taxes (insurance) in the US. So yes, we pay for our Free Basic Healthcare, which is EXACTLY what those ER visits are.

Do you understand anything at all about how the world works? You seem to think other countries give 'free and universal' health care ... which you seem to think means NO ONE pays ANYTHING for it EVER, and also that they treat everything ...

The reality of it is, there is no such thing as 'free healthcare' its just a matter of who you're paying the tax, admittedly, our tax is worse because we have government required for-profit insurance companies (how fucking stupid can you be to allow this to exist) rather than simple public funded health care, so we pay WAY more than anyone else. And its cute that you don't think the ER visits count, but there are plenty of people who actually need healthcare desperately in the world who would literally give up a child if it meant they could walk into an ER and get treated.

You probably have the GPL definition of free, which is pretty common on slashdot ... what you really mean is that you don't have to do anything, but everyone else gives you whatever you want for no cost or effort and in exchange ... you don't have to do shit.
Healthcare in the US is worse than some other countries, but only top of the line FIRST WORLD countries, so basically the worse possible healthcare you can get ... is still pretty great compared to massive chunks of the planet. If you picked some other country in the world and said 'do that' and we went and did it ... you'd be bitching next year about all the problems with that system because guess what ... NOTHING IS PERFECT.

The sense of spoiled entitlement you have is mind blowing.

Re:Free what?

[roccomaglio]

Really. This racist and sexist comment is (Score:3, Insightful). Why is race and sex even mentioned here?

Re:Free what?

[phantomfive]

If you're poor, you can get medicaid for free in the US.

Re:Free what?

[fahrbot-bot]

Actually, I understand all your points. But in the US hospitals are required to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay - which is a good thing - but some people w/o access to primary care often use the ER for all kinds of medical needs and unpaid bills get passed along as higher fees to those that can pay and/or have insurance (not paid by taxes, which would be spread across the entire population).

I don't have any sense of entitlement, but would like those that can pay and/or afford insurance to actually do so and support the, albeit imperfect, system rather than exacerbate the problem. Personally, I'd rather have a tax-supported, universal, perhaps single-payer, system like Medicare or Tricare available to everyone. It torques me off a little that my mother and stepfather are against the ACA and/or universal healthcare for everyone, while enjoying their Medicare and Tricare (respectively) - the ACA doesn't even apply to them.

You make good points, but my point that we don't really have free basic healthcare (presumably for everyone) in the US still stands.

Re:Free what?

[fahrbot-bot]

Really. This racist and sexist comment is (Score:3, Insightful). Why is race and sex even mentioned here?

Actually, I'm also white, male and financially independent. I used the phrase "rich, white dude" to imply "out of touch with the reality of the masses" - as it seems to generally apply. Sorry for any confusion, though the chip on your shoulder seems a little too big...

Re:Free what?

[jedidiah]

> Uh, in the US? Since when?

Since the 60s actually.

The funny thing about liberal bleeding hearts is that they all seem to be totally clueless and have no actual real experience with being poor. They just read nonsense written by some other clueless liberal crusader and take all of their propaganda at face value.

Clueless idiots in general abuse Emergency Rooms. This includes employed middle class people that get out of the transaction with nothing more than a $100 copay. This all stems from the delusion that it's all free. No one cares about what things cost and they will gladly abuse things as much as they can get away with.

Insulating people from costs is a clear and obvious way to ensure that any resource will be abused until the system breaks.

Hospitals (even the no profits) are profit seeking corporations. So they aren't going to discourage you. They look at you and see dollar signs.

Some jurisdictions (even evil republican ones even) will also run publically funded (free) hospitals.

Re:Free what?

[Dragonslicer]

Uh, in the US? Since when? Unless you mean being poor/uninsured and having hospital ERs pass the cost along to others. Perhaps rich white dudes, like Zuckerberg, and I have different definitions of the word "free".

So yes, we do have 'free basic healthcare' by your own words.

Only if you consider the ER preventing you from dying at that particular moment to be "health care".

Re:Free what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that comes out of these cynical m/billionaires fakelithropists good doers is nothing but bait to gain profit somehow.

If he gave a shit he'd use his money to employ those in need with decent living wages (well above minimum wage of say +%50 where a small family of 3 shouldn't worry about paying mortgage and basic living expenses and the kid doesn't have to be living in near constant bombardment of discussions between the parents etc...) and build infrastructures and other basic goods industry and services along the path.

Instead we get around monthly "dear diary" empty blurbs that carry zero weight.

Must be whatever is left from his moral conscience giving its last breath.

Re:Free what?

[Speck'sBacon]

You do realize that one of the reasons we use taxes to pay for police and fire services is because the threats they deal with don't affect only one person. For example, a house fire in a densely populated neighborhood doesn't just threaten one house, but the surrounding houses as well. That's why this is an instance I have yet to see a libertarian object to paying taxes for. Health and education can be a bit more abstract. Most communicable diseases (and damn CDC definitions, I'm including food-borne illnesses or cross-contamination in this as well) come down to sanitation issues, IMO another valid use of tax dollars. Meanwhile, injuries and non-communicable diseases don't tend to immediately affect others outside that person's social circle, and certainly not society as a whole. And the success or failure of education comes down to what one sets as the end goal of that education, which varies from person to person, and consequently government isn't adept at figuring out since government solutions by and large wind up being one-size fits all.

Re:Free what?

[Kohath]

But nevermind the facts. They can't divide people using mere facts. They want the groups to hate each other, so they can exercise power by leading one group against the other. Facts lack the needed drama to encourage otherwise satisfied and peaceful people to want to fight their neighbors.

So shut up about how poor people get Medicaid for free. The poor don't get perfectly equal treatment (in exchange for the nothing that they offer in return). That's what matters. That's why one group should hate the other and put leftists in charge of fighting, procuring loot from your neighbors, and deciding who gets what share of the booty and precisely what the recipient is allowed to do with it.

Re:Free what?

[thegarbz]

and certainly not society as a whole

When you have otherwise able people removed from the economic circuit and sitting on welfare due to the inability to get treatment for the basically treatable then you are affecting society as a whole. Just because it only affects *you* by one very small and minuscule portion doesn't change this.

Easy way to convince them

[cerberusti]

If his motivations are entirely philanthropic in nature, there is an easy solution to their concerns:

Remove Facebook from the free list, and let the government decide what qualifies for the plan.

Re:Easy way to convince them

[Anonymous Coward]

More so than that. He should recuse Facebook entirely from ever being on the list since according to his claims they'll "quickly" move to the full Internet eventually anyway.

Re:Easy way to convince them

[dpidcoe]

That's your own damn fault for buying your phones at subsidized rates from the carrier.

Re:Easy way to convince them

[Anonymous Coward]

That's your own damn fault for buying your phones at subsidized rates from the carrier.

My phone wasn't subsidized and has similar, but not the same, apps which I can no longer remove due to a mandatory update which eliminated the known exploits necessary for rooting. Whose fault is that?

Re:Easy way to convince them

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Or save everyone a lot of time and trouble and just decide how much data, how fast, is "Free Basics" and let those little users decide for themselves what counts as the best use of what they have available.

In practice, I suspect that 'the web' as designed for people with terrible phones and very, very, limited bandwidth is going to be a specialized subset; you just can't get away with streaming-video-ads and multiple megabytes of random 3rd party embeds under those conditions; but it can be a specialized subset that is worked out between people who want to serve those users and those users and their priorities, no fancy central planning needed. After all, the only technology you need to serve people with access to tiny amounts of bandwidth is 'just design like you did when American early-adopter geeks considered a V.32 dialup link to be pretty hot stuff". All those old tricks still work(even better, since judicious use of xhmlhttprequest can avoid the obnoxious old 'generate and load an entirely new page every time you click a single button because we can do almost nothing on the client side' behavior), most of them are still a proper subset of the current 'correct' way, or reasonably close.

If this were actually some mercy mission, you could just decide how much data it is economic to hand out, hand it out, and sit back. I'm guessing that that won't be the plan.

Re:Easy way to convince them

[thegarbz]

Facebook vs the Indian government on the topic of censorship?

  In any other scenario I would be right there with you but sorry mate but I'm going to side with Facebook on this one.

Re:Easy way to convince them

[cerberusti]

That would certainly save a lot of effort, and I doubt anyone would object to that.

This is more like giving out free candy if you get into the car than working a soup kitchen.

Re:Easy way to convince them

[Anonymous Coward]

It was not subsidized, but a full "unlocked" phone.

Same thing with a new tablet i purchased (no cell so no "carrier subsidy").

FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[raymorris]

Obviously Facebook isn't being entirely altruistic here, they are providing access to Wikipedia, local news, weather, Google search, health information etc. and FACEBOOK.

Having said that, you're right the reason a library doesn't have every book ever published is primarily an economic constraint - it doesn't make sense to pay to buy and house everything ever published.

Exactly the same constraint applies to Facebook or a mobile carrier paying for internet access - it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com. It does make sense that someone would offer to pay for your "free" access to Wikipedia, but not offer to pay for your Hulu and Girls Gone Wild surfing. Furthermore, because there is a finite amount of money, if FB DID spend it subsidizing Xvideos in one area, that would exhaust the budget and mean the budget would not also provide free access to Wikipedia in another area.

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful strawman. So asking for Fuckerberg to not get government subsidies to sell more Facebook ads is akin to wanting free porn and Hulu? lolwut? That's got to be one of the dumbest leaps of logic ever presented on Slashdot.

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[Holi]

How useful is Google search when you don't have access to any of the pages it is linking to?

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[Anonymous Coward]

uhm, no. The budget would not be exhausted. Only the rate of data for everyone can be exhausted. but that can be helped through traffic congestion. Eg, by limiting the data rate during busy times.

This Facebook "white list" censorship through sponsors is garbage through and through. Just because it sounds better than giving everyone free porn that doesn't make it any better on its own merits.

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[pla]

Wonderful strawman.

Look, I hate FB and Zuck as much as the next Slashdotter, but in this case, the GP has it absolutely spot-on.

Facebook has offered to make a number of services available. Yes, they will take as much as they can get from the government to help pay for providing this service. And yes, the local governments can say "no thanks, we'd rather have the next Tsunami surprise us, if we can't have porn". It really does come down to that, no strawman involved: Bandwidth costs money.

When you have your hand out, do you spit at the guy who gives you five dollars instead of ten?

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[Anonymous Coward]

How useful is Google search when you don't have access to any of the pages it is linking to?

It's extremely useful. Advertisers can tell what you might buy or which way you're inclined to vote based on the keywords you enter.

P.S. WTF is happening with logging on? Has some idiot been fucking around with the site again?

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[vux984]

Exactly the same constraint applies to Facebook or a mobile carrier paying for internet access - it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com.

See... this is a fallacy. The issue here isn't that facebook isn't paying to stream videos... porn or otherwise. If they had a 'no video' policy, nobody would blink.

If they don't want to subsidize streaming porn videos that's fine; but its a strawman -- that's not even the issue.

The issue is that it blocks access to:

mathoverflow.net, linux.org, project gutenberg, ietf.org, slashdot.org, cancerforums.net, woodworkingtalk.com, and literally a million other sources of news, information, ideas, support, and so forth that is all primarily text.

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[magarity]

When you have your hand out, do you spit at the guy who gives you five dollars instead of ten?

Maybe he's in D.C. There are some seriously aggressive panhandlers in that town.

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[hoggoth]

> Maybe he's in D.C. There are some seriously aggressive panhandlers in that town

That's not a very respectful way to speak about your elected officials.

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[whoever57]

Exactly the same constraint applies to Facebook or a mobile carrier paying for internet access - it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com.

This is in part a strawman and in part false. Yes, Facebook has costs, but its decisions will be informed by its desire for profit, not a remit for public service. Just like any action of a public servant, decisions on book purchases can be challenged by civilians. There is no such accountability in Facebook's decisions.

FInally, probably one of the best collections of pornography can be found in the British Library, so the idea that Wikipedia not paying to stream pornography is equivalent to libraries not stocking it is false.

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[whoever57]

s/Wikipedia/Facebook/ Duh!

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[mysidia]

it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com. It does make sense that someone would offer to pay for your "free" access to Wikipedia, but not offer to pay for your Hulu and Girls Gone Wild surfing.

Why does it make sense? Are you making a value judgement that Wikipedia has more useful merit, and streaming Hulu would be a recreational misallocation of bandwidth? Perhaps Hulu will be the next sponsor?

What about accessing a competing social network, and streaming cat videos on Facebook?

We're talking about non-neutral practices regarding ISP services.

It's a dangerous precedent if content providers are allowed to partner with ISPs, because soon the ISPs will seek more partnerships. Eventually, a partnership becomes mandatory

Once enough major websites are accessible for free; people switch services to save money on their "internet" service, and then the open and free internet died that day --- from then on, only billion $$$ megacorporations could become a sponsor and have their website included in the public internet; by the end of the decade, only the few total nerds forking over $1000US a month to remain on the pay internet could see the non-sponsored websites.

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[Anonymous Coward]

*sniggers*

(how many people will take that the wrong way?)

Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both

[Anonymous Coward]

You, and they, have the opportunity to PAY for additional content. This is FREE content. You do not have to PAY for it. If you want unfettered access then you PAY for it. You are not going to be given FREE access to everything.

This is not difficult to comprehend. Frothing about it makes you look like an idiot. You do not DESERVE anything of the sort. You EARN things. Not everyone has the capacity to EARN everything they might WANT to have. That sucks. WORK and EARN some money and provide FREE stuff to them if YOU want to do so. YOU don't get to decide how THEY spend THEIR money or what services THEY provide for FREE. It's not YOUR property. It's not YOUR choice. You are owed only taxes from Facebook. Nothing more.

To go even further, they should/could offer a steeply discounted restricted access to other sites which may include tracking and sponsorship. So long as full access is available at a reasonable price then such offerings are a good thing. If you want something different then get off your lazy, entitled, ass and make something better and provide better services.

Bait and switch from Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all I have to deal with this beauty: "Public hospitals don't offer every treatment, but they still save lives." Maybe that's true in the USA where Zuckerberg is from, but it's definitely not true in a lot of other countries (even in some poorer ones!). I offer this as just one example of how Zuckerberg is casually trying to dodge the criticisms rather than confront them head-on. He offers slightly off-topic truisms, and then steps back to see if anyone noticed that the topic of conversation has magically shifted.

Despite the rhetoric, he still has not discussed why he feels it is morally acceptable for a private company to provide poor people with limited and privately-controlled information. It is particularly disturbing that the recipients of this "free knowledge" are mostly poorly educated people who are completely unaware of how easy it is for "The Internet" to lie, and who also may not understand that corporate beneficence may in fact be a cover for commercial positioning.

Re:Bait and switch from Zuckerberg

[fluffernutter]

ISIS doesn't have a problem providing their own education to the poor unwashed masses.. Why should Facebook?

things college graduates know

[fermion]

That a library can request a book form anywhere in the world. Sure, it is still technically a limited supply, but a library is not nearly as limited as a college drop out thinks.

Re:things college graduates know

[Anonymous Coward]

feh, we have internet now... who needs libraries!?

(j/k---used libraries as quiet places to nap between classes :-)

Messiah Complex?

[Foxhoundz]

I think at this point Zuckerberg seems like he has developed some form of a messiah complex, in which he believes he has a moral or divine responsibility to be the agent in delivering good to the planet. The fact that he's blatantly comparing his own company's initiatives to a publicly funded library is indicative of that, especially considering Facebook et al stands to profit from this little venture.

Re:Messiah Complex?

[Etcetera]

I think at this point dipshit #Solutionist Millennials seem like they have developed some form of a messiah complex, in which they believe they have a moral or divine responsibility to be the agent in delivering good to the planet.

FTFY.

Re:Messiah Complex?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a lot simpler than that, just self-interest.
Go back to Upton Sinclar's basic insight:

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

More like broadcast commercial TV than libraries.

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuck is trying to compare the "Free internet" to independently run libraries, but in reality it's like a broadcast TV station, driven by profit motive. Facebook is a public company with a responsibility to make money for its shareholders. You really think they won't try to monetize this after a while?

Facebook is NOT a Hospital

[Anonymous Coward]

They basically let any company that was willing to pay for access get access.

The thing is, any company willing to pay for access, has to make a profit, so only the most expensive service providers pay for access. In many areas, the most expensive service providers were outright conmen, liars, and thieves.

In India, this happened regularly People got locked into long term contracts for ridiculous things, were fed bullshit stock tips from stock manipulators, etc. etc.

The concept of a walled garden can work - but only if you have someone serious about protecting the garden for the benefit of the people, rather than serious about locking the people into the garden.

Facebook is NOT the company you want doing that. They treat people like cattle, farming them. They are in fact pretty much the worst people imaginable to run a walled garden. It's like saying "Hey, we want to protect the sheep, let's hire the wolves to act as bodyguards."

Re:Facebook is NOT a Hospital

[halivar]

No, the analogy is at least somewhat apt; having a public profile is like wearing an assless gown.

wtf are you talking about government?

[raymorris]

Is there some government subsidy here, or are you completely making shit up? From what I've seen, Facebook and the carriers are the ones subsidizing consumers' access.

Critics should provide their own services

[iamacat]

There is no doubt that informational and education resources included with free basics are beneficial and even health/life saving to someone unable to afford a pay service. Net neutrality/anticompetitive concerns are also valid, but they are a 1st world problem. We have to solve them in due time, but not the expense of folks getting connected to their families and the world by someone who is willing to pay for it now.

Ad supported Internet has its own share of problems, including journalistic integrity. But no sane person would give up access to all the services until something perfect is created. We shouldn't be hypocrites and demand that of people in other parts of the world.

How about government of India and its world record number of billionaires provide fully open Internet access? Or are critics back at home willing to donate $19.99 per month for connecting the world? If not, they should let whoever is willing do some good.

Re:Critics should provide their own services

[cerberusti]

What they are offering is not internet access, it is a place in his walled garden (or maybe fenced pasture is better). Wikipedia and such are the sugar that he was hoping would help them swallow the bitter facebook medicine.

There are a lot of secondary effects to allowing something like this, from crushing any local competition with facebook before it begins, to letting them choose and price what it takes to reach the populace. If he is only going for the betterment of everyone involved, he can straight up donate the money to do this, or allow all sites which meet certain bandwidth requirements.

Re:Critics should provide their own services

[iamacat]

From what I understand, Mark Zuckerberg does intend to donate most of his personal money. As far as Facebook's money and labor of its employees, there obviously has to be something for the company to make a massive investment worthwhile. This does not make access to Wikipedia any less valuable to someone who would otherwise remain uneducated and access to Facebook itself is a benefit to someone who would otherwise not get to see family photos. Local competition will have much more luck once some folks teach themselves how to code and population is educated about benefits of Internet access in general.

Re:Critics should provide their own services

[Kohath]

But no sane person would give up access to all the services until something perfect is created.

"It's not perfect, so let's not do it at all" is the most common Slashdot argument against anything.

Try to understand: Free, ad-supported, limited-Internet service is bad. Let them eat cake.

Re:Critics should provide their own services

[oh_my_080980980]

Hello moron. He is NOT donating anything money period. HIS money is doing to an LLC. It is not a charitable organization. You can fuck off now.

A picture is worth 1000 words, video a million

[raymorris]

In terms of bandwidth, a picture really is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth a million. In other words, it costs about the same to deliver one video or a million wikipedia pages.

It does have costs. Fiber lines don't build themselves and upgrade themselves every few years. Cisco routers don't magically appear. Just as importantly for the mobile providers, the backbone providers don't give them free bandwidth. The backbones charge.

So $1 can deliver X number of videos, or X million number of wikipedia views.

Re:A picture is worth 1000 words, video a million

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have a very valid point if they restricted the service to text at say 10kB per second (enough for *text* websites); created a text friendly FB portal for folks in such places, etc., but beyond that let anyone go anywhere and do anything (wanna host a server, no issues, etc.), etc. Images... are possible, but slow... no video, etc. Maximum coverage (with email and other basic text communication) for maximum people (think 1995 in the US).

But what FB is doing is pushing their agenda... there's nothing wrong with that, but they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Re:A picture is worth 1000 words, video a million

[mysidia]

In other words, it costs about the same to deliver one video or a million wikipedia pages.

You forget that there are Wikipedia pages with pictures and videos on the page.

Facebook's video service is also extremely popular on Facebook; people consume video content on all websites. On some websites, there is more video available ---- presumably, some people like video content and flock to sites that have a larger selection.

But given no choice, they will watch Video on FB.

If the argument is the video media takes precious bandwidth, then to provide a 'light' service block multimedia, Video media and large file downloads, and media streaming, regardless of the provider.

and those examples use standard infrastructures

[Locutus]

what it sounds like you are planning is a controlled infrastructure. Just use the existing infrastructure and put up limited availability sites. But if you want to build out your own CompuServe and/or AOL service you are going to be bashed if you do so leveraging your Facebook service to do it. Or maybe you should create your own religion like L Ron Hubbard did and control those who come to you.

But do not try to take advantage of persons in certain socio economic situations pretending to be their saviour. A Douglas Adams were alive today I'm sure he'd have a very comical yet accurate way of describing what your are attempting to do.

LoB

zuck the suck

[Anonymous Coward]

TIme to debunk zuckerberg.
"We have collections of free basic books. They're called libraries. They don't contain every book, but they still provide a world of good."
Subset restriction due to space/practical requirements.

"We have free basic healthcare. Public hospitals don't offer every treatment, but they still save lives."
Subset restriction due to healthcare specialisation, costs (in dollars and real resources).

"We have free basic education. Every child deserves to go to school."
Basic education - Sounds like American rubbish. Outside of 'merica the public education systems of most 1st world countries are not just 'basic'

"And in the 21st century, everyone also deserves access to the tools and information that can help them to achieve all those other public services, and all their fundamental social and economic rights. That's why everyone also deserves access to free basic internet services."
This should have started with 'I believe' or 'I want to provide'

Zuck is putting a subset restricton on a product/service which by design is a complete set of functionality so its ultimately for business/money/profit reasons.

LMFTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has now published a response written for Mark Zuckerbuerg, in the Times of India.

Re:Libraries are not free

[fluffernutter]

So if someone wanted to give you free money, but the condition was that you had to suck their dick, you would take it without further fanfare? That's interesting.

Re:Libraries are not free

[Anonymous Coward]

"So if someone wanted to give you free money, but the condition was that you had to suck their dick, you would take it without further fanfare? That's interesting."

Sure. Can't promise I won't bite though. In fact, the odds are pretty high.

Independent board

[fluffernutter]

What Zuckerberg needs to do is appoint an independent board to determine who gets into this. The board should have the mandate to provide access to as much balanced and impartial information as possible, period. The only economic interest in this mandate should be to stay within the budget they are granted.

Aligning a service like tihs with the goals and agenda of any private organization is dangerous indeed. Then it is no longer altruistic and I fail to see how it can ever be good for the people.

He's on to something

[penguinoid]

all those that met its low-bandwidth technical guidelines would gain approval.

Specifically, mobile websites should work in the absence of:

        JavaScript
        SVG images and WOFF font types
        iframes
        Video and large images
        Flash and Java applets

Yes, yes, and yes. When I load a page, I don't want 90% of the data to consist of a pile of scripts that exists mostly to violate my privacy, that stupid new style of in-window "pop-up" frame, or generally almost every one of the "modern advances" in website design. Of course, I wouldn't trust FB to decide which content to allow or not, but it sure would be nice for websites to implement these upgrades.

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

[hoggoth]

> We have free basic healthcare

Communist. We don't want things like health and security here in the U.S..
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Re:Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

[jedidiah]

Of course not. The U.S. all about growth and opportunity. It's not some stale old country that's homogeneous and stable. It's not a place that pants for newcomers (or anyone else with ambition).

Re:Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

I didn't see "The Christmas Carol" ending with Scrooge going into politics and deciding that every other wealthy person in the world would have to pay 10% of their money to provide benefits to the poor. Dickens seemed to be saying we should help the poor and downtrodden, not give money to bureaucrats who line their own pockets and then dole out a little bit of the money of the wealthy to show how nice and great said bureaucrats are, maintaining how evil and greedy the wealthy still are.

What alternatives are being offered?

[XxtraLarGe]

So Facebook is offering FREE, limited internet to poor people in third world countries. What are the critics of this plan offering to poor people in third world countries? Nothing. Some people like to complain for the sake of complaining.

Re:What alternatives are being offered?

[fluffernutter]

Sure.. and ISIS loves to give people free room and board, along with a free education! Nothing wrong with that right??

Re:What alternatives are being offered?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What are the critics of this plan offering to poor people in third world countries?"

I do hope you realize this is the same argument often used for sweat shop working conditions? "You are poor, you should be happy with what I give you, even if that means I'm taking advantage of you to line my own pockets."

Re:What alternatives are being offered?

[Anonymous Coward]

We critics offer NO internet. In exchange the poor people get to keep their soul.

Re:What alternatives are being offered?

[Kohath]

Let them eat cake.

Re:What alternatives are being offered?

[oh_my_080980980]

People in 3rd world countries don't have clean running water. So FUCK OFF!

Re:What alternatives are being offered?

[Anonymous Coward]

His intentions are not clear.
He is providing limited internet to gain consumers for his business. Indians can become largest Facebook user group (Facebook banned in China) if they access it using freebasics.

Re:Libraries are not free

[Oligonicella]

You did not describe free.

Re:Libraries are not free

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor is is deal.. there are conditions attached. What is sucking on a person's dick costing you? No more than this plan.

Malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Any 'app' that comes out of Facebook or Zuckerberg should be automatically classified as 'malware' and sent straight to the recycle bin, along with so-called 'social media' as well, because all of the above are a plague on humanity that it would do well to forget about.

Half a loaf

[jlaprise1]

One problem with the discussion that is occurring online is that _we_ all have Internet access. 80%+ of Indians don't. Ask them whether imperfect Internet access is better than none. The answers you get will likely be quite different...

Re:Half a loaf

[Kazoo the Clown]

If you give them a half that is mostly advertising, if I were them I'd say it's not better than none.

Re:Half a loaf

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah the people without clean water really give a rats ass about the internet. Moron.

Gateway service...

[The-Ixian]

"In essence, Facebook is claiming that since people quickly move on from Free Basics, it's less of a threat as a restricted replacement to the neutral Internet, and is more of a stepping stone to it."

So.... it's like pot (if you believe government claims about it being a gateway drug)

Could Zuckerberg be any more clueless?

[Kazoo the Clown]

One notable difference is, with a library, a publisher isn't going to send every book it has to the library for free, since that would impact its bottom line. Free books do not constitute advertising for the books given away, since the people who get them no longer need to buy the book, they just got to read it for free.

Not $10 internet light, free educational material

[raymorris]

> to provide a "light" srvice block multimedia

If they were selling a light-use internet service, sure. They are not. They are giving, at no charge, access to educational materials (and their own site, of course). They are fully within their rights to decide what they want to pay for, to give away.

It never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of self-entitled little spoiled brats Slashdot readers are, as they bitch about people giving things away.

Re:I don't understand the problem.

[buchner.johannes]

No, because at that point he becomes a telecom provider, and has to follow rules and regulations of telecom companies, which include net neutrality, i.e. not preferring your & your buddies' companies.

Open-minded, not lacking-mind. AOL, MSN & Prod

[raymorris]

> Are you making a value judgement that Wikipedia has more useful merit, and streaming Hulu would be a recreational misallocation of bandwidth?

Yes. Wikipedia it's more useful to struggling people in a third world country than Hulu is. It's been said "be open minded, but not so open that your brains fall out".

> if content providers are allowed to partner with ISPs ... then the open and free internet died that day --- from then on, only billion $$$ megacorporations could become a sponsor and have their website included in the public internet by the end of the decade

Not a terrible guess, but we've actually already been there and done that. In the early years, ISPs actually did only carry content from partner companies. The major ISPs included AOL, MSN, and Prodigy. "By the end of the decade" they all had to change their business model to providing full internet access because people like MORE. That's Americans' favorite thing, "more". It didn't take long for ISPs who offered full unfettered access to everything to win out over those with content partnerships. Again, not a bad guess, not knowing how that actually turned out. But it does in fact turn out the opposite of what you guessed.

this should be entertaining

[raymorris]

> > it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com.

> This is in part a strawman and in part false.

Okay explain to me why Facebook should pay for your porn streaming. Go ahead, and listening.

Re:this should be entertaining

[whoever57]

Okay explain to me why Facebook should pay for your porn streaming. Go ahead, and listening.

I didn't say that Facebook should pay for this. What I did say that Facebook's justification for providing a walled garden is bogus. The long game from Facebook is not beneficial for people.

Re:this should be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious solution is to allow unlimited access to everything, at a data rate that allows text pages but makes data streaming impractical. Instead, Facebook wants to make sure it has plenty of bandwidth to push its ads but not allow its competitors into the regions.

My question

[FrozenGeek]

is "would the recipients of 'free basics' be better off with 'free basics'?" If they would be better off, then I don't see the problem. I'm not a fan of Zuckerburg (or twitter), but he's offering something of value. It may not be the value you'd like to see him offer, but unless someone else if offering something better, good on Zuck. "Half a steak is better than none."

Re:My question

[oh_my_080980980]

Ah troll. He is not offering anything of value. Fuck off.

Did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't imagine himself doing any wrong with this so when he made this statement it was probably genuine.

Fuck Off Mark Zuckerberg

[oh_my_080980980]

You misanthropic toady. No one is buying your bullshit. Do the world a favor and recede into the weeds.

Re:Libraries are not free

[KGIII]

Hmm... The library in the village, when I'm home - at least, is not paid for by any taxes - they even pay taxes (albeit at a locked in rate from something like 1860 so not a whole lot in taxes). (I think their tax bill was like $6 per year and they're actually unable to increase their size because of it - or were, more on that in a minute.) See, a long time ago, someone set up a trust and a collection of books to get things started. The library was staffed with volunteers and a single poorly paid librarian. They even participate in the Inter-library Loan deal - at no cost to patrons.

Residents get a library card for free. Tourists, out of town folks, people with camps, etc. all pay a small ($10 - $25/year) fee. Electricity, heat, improvements, etc. are all done via donations.

In fact, they wanted to expand and have some extra space. They wanted to do some remodeling and the donations had provided a goodly sum towards that goal but hadn't provided everything. Doing so would have increased their taxes. A deal was struck with the town and some anonymous person donated enough money and tripled their original trust fund to ensure they can keep running in perpetuity. They can now afford the new tax, have completed the expansion, have computers and internet, upgraded the boiler (and did needed repairs), restored some of the stonework, replaced the windows, and have an emergency fund. They were able to not only meet their needs but someone came along and matched every single donation (up to $10,000) made by an individual and matched every donation (up to $25,000) for any business that was willing to donate.

That anonymous person now sits on the board of directors and, at last count, they had an investment of about 1.2e5 dollars which gave them an average of ~160k dollars for a yearly operating budget. They can now afford to provide computers, pay for two librarians, give a stipend to a few volunteers, have a couple of functions for kids and adults alike, and pay any related expenses while maintaining a budget surplus and have expansion and upgrade plans as well as prepare for emergencies. They were able to complete, with a surplus, their expansion which meant that they could get their copper roof worked on.

No tax dollars went to work on the project, the labor was paid for or was done by volunteers. Some of the material was donated - including some carving done in granite and some fascia work. It's rather nice and only took a few years to complete once the funding was in place. They probably would have managed it without the anonymous donation(s) but those certainly sped the project up and enabled them to do more and come out ahead of where they'd expected to be.

Err... I should also mention that the townsfolk are reasonably certain of who that anonymous person is as the timing is a bit suspect and it's a small town where nothing is really anonymous but they're anonymous just the same.

I guess the point is, not all libraries are funded with taxes. They don't even fund the upkeep on the lawn or even plow the parking lot with town vehicles. It's a pretty nice library that has some great patrons and some great volunteers/paid staff who really believe in the library and its benefits. Some folks have said the anonymous donations have saved the library but I personally believe they'd have met their goals anyhow but that it would have taken longer. There's still some inner debate with that anonymous person as to whether they'll be leaving their own collection behind for said library and then putting the house and some of the property into a trust that enables it to be retained by the library. Something where, with enough work, others can come and study on a more long-term basis would be ideal but that's still a matter of debate and has not been decided and may never reach fruition.

Oh, the town has fewer than 1200 residents and now has a library that exceeds most other libraries in the area in services provided and is on par with square footage equal to, or greater than, many libraries that server much larger populations. It can be done without taxes. This doesn't mean taxes shouldn't take care of it, just that it's not required.

Re:Open-minded, not lacking-mind. AOL, MSN & P

[mysidia]

Not a terrible guess, but we've actually already been there and done that. In the early years, ISPs actually did only carry content from partner companies.

However, things were a bit different way back then.... these were really pre-ISP information services and BBSes, not ISPs.... they were a precursor to the consumer internet, and internet was seen as "the next big thing". The computer-using community was much smaller back then: mostly technology enthusiasts greatly interested in the next big thing: Very Few consumers only dabbling to sell to in order to sustain a business model. Definitely NOT the type of people who just stay on Facebook all day and perhaps some Youtube, Google for schoolwork, and not much else.

The demographics of internet users have now fundamentally changed, so it's potentially possible now that an ISP could sustain a model of providing free service to just people who only want access to FB and Wikipedia.

The change in demographics means, that we could no longer be sure the AOL/MSN/Prodigy model dressed up to a 2016 version, with some Apps added, could not succeed.

I'm basically saying, that the public has different values than what early internet users and technologists value, so they may make different choices, But I still think the open internet is worth preserving, even if your average consumer does not value it or understand what a great thing it is, And that FB, et all, and whatever will come after them, actually do owe their existence to its openness.

Is this the unicorn that sucker erg was giving awa

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen all these Facebook posts about suck giving away 10 percent of his money, or maybe a unicorn, to people like you and me, on New Years.... Is this that giveaway?

Re:Open-minded, not lacking-mind. AOL, MSN & P

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reasoning makes perfect sense to me, except you start with the premise that AOL customers were tech enthusiasts. That's not what I recall. AOL and Prodigy users drooled on their keyboards as they stared glossy-eyed just as much as Facebook users do.

Savetheinternet.in

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick shoutout to the good folks at http://www.savetheinternet.in/

They've made it really easy to write to TRAI or your local MP regarding Net Neutrality with their automated email address lists and templates.