Facebook Planning to Bring Free Internet to Africa: Good or Bad?

[jackelgull]

Isn't that kind of like saying Amercans didn't have to buy the cheaper better products of Standard Oil, so they only have themselves to blame for the monopoly that formed? I'm not saying Africans who are offered this definitely shouldn't take advantage of this, but a discussion of potential repercussions definitely needs to be had, even if the result ends up being something that was impossible to foresee.

 

[Formaldehyde]

DeWalt wants to give free hand screwdrivers to everyone in Africa under the program "tools for Africa". This is very useful for a population that has a limited number of screwdrivers. With the additional screwdrivers, many people will save a lot of labor previously consumed by using faulty tools or waiting for their turn to use the village's screwdrivers.

However, some people are upset, arguing that DeWalt shouldn't say they are giving away tools when they are only giving away screwdrivers. They think giving away powered drill sets would be more more useful. Of course, a drill set is more useful than a screwdriver, but a drill set is also way more expensive, and DeWalt is only willing to expend so much in this charitable activity. These people think DeWalt is being nefarious because of the broad definition of tools.

So now you are comparing DeWalt supposedly wanting to give away free screwdrivers with no apparent strings attached (and which is apparently just concocted nonsense and another example of inane forum spam), with a company who wants to exploit a million Africans to grow their own business by using incredibly deceptive methods? Really?

 

[BvBPL]

Nothing says exploitation like giving away critical elements of contemporary infrastructure for free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rashiminos]

We can certainly enlist Avenue Q in fighting the AIDS epidemic.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Isn't that kind of like saying Amercans didn't have to buy the cheaper better products of Standard Oil, so they only have themselves to blame for the monopoly that formed? I'm not saying Africans who are offered this definitely shouldn't take advantage of this, but a discussion of potential repercussions definitely needs to be had, even if the result ends up being something that was impossible to foresee.

I see no possible scenario where FB develops a monopoly over the internet because people in Africa use this free program, so the analogy doesn't fit.

Sure we can discuss potential problems but your last post seemed to go rather far in my opinion. That's really what I was reacting to - I'm in no way giving FB any kind of free pass. But I do tend to think that this is probably a net good.

I guess a useful contrast to the FB free internet program would be SpaceX's plan to launch a metric crapton of low-and-medium orbiting satellites to give global broadband coverage only they aren't giving it away. You have to pay for the service - which will truly cover the whole globe and thus covers under serviced areas like the ones that FB is targeting in Africa.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nothing says exploitation like giving away critical elements of contemporary infrastructure for free.

Nothing says not even understanding the basic issues already presented in this thread better than ignoring all the previous posts while concocting inane spam.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Nothing says not even understanding the basic issues better than concocting inane spam.

quoted for irony

incessant personal attack much?

 

[Formaldehyde]

quoted for irony

Quoted for apparently not understanding what "spam" means.

incessant personal attack much?

Or hypocrisy.

 

[BvBPL]

Help, I'm being personally attacked! Ha ha.

Much of the discussion thus far has been focused on the service element if this charity. The hardware side if things has been mostly ignored. Facebook deserves praise for committing to the development of the physical infrastructure of the program and the distribution of devices as well. Few other parties have stepped up to provide similar infrastructure and none on the same scale.

If Facebook merely committed to provide the satellites and devices and asked Africans to pay for the service then it would be praised as being forward thinking. However, some how when we add the free service they turn out to be the devil in disguise. An absurd double standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formaldehyde]

Provide a source for your DeWalt spam.

And a source that claims this isn't some sort of marketing scam as it apparently is. Why do you think they chose the name "internet.org" for their wholly owned provider? Because they were being completely transparent? Because they weren't really providing "free internet" at all except to access their own products and possibly a few others of their own choosing?

TANSTAAFL.

 

[Zelig]

I think the .org domain is one of the least concerning things, it's been like two decades since any for-profit company or random individual has been able to register .org domains. I don't think any young or new internet users associate the domain with actual non-profits, same as .com isn't associated with only commercial organizations anymore.

 

[Formaldehyde]

"internet.org"? You don't think that is misleading in the least? Why didn't they call it FacebookISP.com or something similar?

 

[Zelig]

I don't really think it's misleading, no. The page title and the top logo both clearly show "internet.org by facebook"

Maybe it's more of a thing in the US where the government has monopolized edu/gov/mil, but anywhere else in the world anyone can get any domain they want.

 

[Agent327]

No, but neither is providing free internet. This just seems like a terribly short-sighted plan that isn't taking into consideration the potential negative economic effects that may result.

Like what? Cybercafés going out of business? Does that outweigh having reliable internet instead of constantly experiencing bad connections just because you happen to live in Africa?

"internet.org"? You don't think that is misleading in the least? Why didn't they call it FacebookISP.com or something similar?

Yes, I'm sure the people profiting from free internet will feel seriously misled.

DeWalt wants to give free hand screwdrivers to everyone in Africa under the program "tools for Africa". This is very useful for a population that has a limited number of screwdrivers.

So free screwdrivers is OK, but we need to draw the line at free internet. By God, these Africans might actually become smart... Can't have that.

Nothing says exploitation like giving away critical elements of contemporary infrastructure for free.

Yes. No more free roadbuilding. Down with the capitalists!

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't really think it's misleading, no. The page title and the top logo both clearly show "internet.org by facebook"

Maybe it's more of a thing in the US where the government has monopolized edu/gov/mil, but anywhere else in the world anyone can get any domain they want.

What "page title and top logo"?

EDIT: Ah. You mean their website.

I was referring to the deceptiveness of the name itself. Not the web content as it currently exists to attract developers and the press to get behind this latest scheme.

If you told me that Facebook was providing free access to the internet to much of the 2/3rds of the population of the world that doesn't yet have it, I would say that is an incredibly noble for them to do. Kudos!

But that apparently is not what is occurring here. They have come up with some scheme to entrap these people into using Facebook and a handful of their apps instead of the internet. They likely have some scheme in order to get them to pay for it in some way, such as forcing them to watch ads which provide the revenue to make it all possible. Or they have come up with some other novel means of financially justifying it.

This smacks of AOL (America Online) for those of you who aren't old enough to remember them. it was one of the very first dial-up service providers that eventually crippled their uses by only allowing them to access the internet through their own proprietary browser and services. At one time, they were incredibly huge and dominated the novice internet segment for many years:

Spoiler :

People who used AOL were trapped in their own little totally incompatible world. This literally stifled internet growth and eventually became a bad joke in the computer industry:

In its earlier incarnation as a “walled garden” community and service provider, AOL received criticism for its community policies, terms of service, and customer service. Prior to 2006, AOL was known for its direct mailing of CD-ROMs and 3½" floppy disks containing its software. The disks were distributed in large numbers; at one point, half of the CDs manufactured worldwide had AOL logos on them.[97] The marketing tactic was criticized for its environmental cost, and AOL CDs were recognized as PCWorld’s most annoying tech product.[98][99]

 

[Agent327]

I know this isn't an RD thread, but try staying on actual topic.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Try reading what I actually post, which is quite obviously "on actual topic".

It just apparently disagrees with your own seemingly misinformed personal opinion, while agreeing with many of the other posters in this thread.

 

[Leoreth]

Facebook's dollars ≠ tax dollars.

But it's all free stuff. You're contradicting yourself.

 

[bhavv]

Can we assume then you know zero?

Do taxpayers pay for FB?

Can we assume that the number of Africans someone knows correlates to believing that giving everything away for free is how the world works?

And how many Africans do you know that live in such luxury as to own their own PCs and mobile phones? I'm sure there's plenty, but why exactly do the ones that are already well off need free internet? How is free internet going to be of any help to the penniless and starving Africans living in the worst conditions without access to electricity and without any such luxuries as phones and computers?

In normal cases, people pay for their own internet, and facebook generates income from ads. In this situation, you are ignoring that the internet service is being provided for free. Someone has to pay for the service, and if it isn't Africans then its most likely taxpayers.

 

[Kyriakos]

What "page title and top logo"?

EDIT: Ah. You mean their website.

I was referring to the deceptiveness of the name itself. Not the web content as it currently exists to attract developers and the press to get behind this latest scheme.

If you told me that Facebook was providing free access to the internet to much of the 2/3rds of the population of the world that doesn't yet have it, I would say that is an incredibly noble for them to do. Kudos!

But that apparently is not what is occurring here. They have come up with some scheme to entrap these people into using Facebook and a handful of their apps instead of the internet. They likely have some scheme in order to get them to pay for it in some way, such as forcing them to watch ads which provide the revenue to make it all possible. Or they have come up with some other novel means of financially justifying it.

This smacks of AOL (America Online) for those of you who aren't old enough to remember them. it was one of the very first dial-up service providers that eventually crippled their uses by only allowing them to access the internet through their own proprietary browser and services. At one time, they were incredibly huge and dominated the novice internet segment for many years:

Spoiler :

People who used AOL were trapped in their own little totally incompatible world. This literally stifled internet growth and eventually became a bad joke in the computer industry:

Aol being a 'walled garden community'