Hacker News Reader

Comment by thrownaway122 | Hacker News Reader

No this is not Internet. It is AOL v2. It could well mean that people never get any internet.

Semantics. internet.org gives folks the ability to connect on a global scale with others.

You would take that away from them, because it doesn't fit what you understand about how a set of computers should communicate?

The semantics are important. This could very well mean that those people won't get proper internet because "hey, what do you need that for, you've got internet.org!"

I understand the "some internet is better than none" but this isn't the internet. This is internet.org

On top of that, it means that Facebook gets to micromanage a populations internet usage, what they can and cannot see, with no legal oversight because "were doing you a favour!"

Totally. This is Facebook assuming control of what entire populations can see and hear, under the guise of charity. No effing bueno.

So you would literally go to these people and tell them they are going to continue to not have any way of communicating with one another or others throughout the world because what they're being offered isn't the "real" Internet?

You would tell them they must continue to live isolated from one another and the rest of the world? You'd deny them access to the single greatest invention humanity has ever come up with because it doesn't fit your ideology?

It doesn't have to be an All Or Nothing situation. Nobody has asserted that nobody should ever provide limited internet access to developing countries. It's just that Facebooks attempt have some very serious, and potentially malicious problems, which have been stated in this thread.

It is an all or nothing situation. You're asserting that you would take away internet.org. Since there is no alternative, that would leave the folks who must use internet.org with nothing.

I apologize for the account swapping -- HN decided I was commenting too much on my other account, and I wanted to continue our discussion while it was still fresh in both our minds.

There are alternatives. Look at Google Loon.

There are not alternatives. I recommend you look at Google Loon before citing it as an actively running alternative in India.

For the people who use Internet.org, there are literally no other ways to get online.

The problem with internet.org is it redefines "Internet" and "online" to mean "Facebook" and "Facebook". That is not the Internet, and the only thing truly "online" about it is the totally unencrypted and tracked browsing habits of the people. No number of token good-will sites or pay-to-play business sites will ever make this initiative the "Internet", and the wall of global segregation grows ever higher.

It's that, or literally nothing.

Not necessarily. If the internet.org initiative was truly noble, they could provide bandwidth-limited access to all of the Internet, along with an optional service or browser addon that formats pages for text-only viewing to save even more bandwidth.

Sure, but they don't, so it's either what they currently offer or nothing.

>It is an all or nothing situation

No, it's not. A service could exist that provides this functionality without the problems Facebook has created.

>You're asserting that you would take away internet.org

Please find where I said this.

But this isn't access to the single greatest invention humanity has ever come up with. It's a brand that takes its name and applies it to a surveillance monopoly.

It's internet.org that's denying people access to the Internet, not people pointing this fact out.

Internet.org is a set of interconnected computers. You want to get political and philosophical about what is and isn't the Internet, but Mumtaz in Bangalore wants to send $5 to his wife, and doesn't get to do that unless internet.org exists.

> a set of interconnected computers

That just makes it a network.

Mumtaz is a female name. And since that suggests you aren't very familiar with India, I'll recommend not assuming that Internet.org is the only way people are going to get Internet.

It's not even taken seriously in India and got dragged into this debate only because of other proposals that are actually, intentionally malicious.

I work with a Mumtaz, are you telling me he's a lady?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com