Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor

from the new-AOL,-brought-to-you-by-Mother-Teresa dept

Tue, May 5th 2015 6:16am — Karl Bode

Last month we noted how Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been getting a crash course in net neutrality over in India, while the government fields public comment over new neutrality rules. The debate has been particularly heated in regards to Facebook's Internet.org initiative, which offers free, walled-garden access to some content and services (namely Facebook and its deep pocketed partners). Companies have been vocally dropping out of the effort, complaining they don't like the idea of Facebook and its partner ISPs getting to decide what content gets to be cap exempt (aka: zero rating).

Zuckerberg has proven to be rather tone deaf to the criticism so far, the CEO arguing repeatedly that creating walled gardens and breaking the very principles of the open Internet is OK -- provided you claim to have good intentions (in this case, aiding the poor by marketing to them in a Facebook walled garden). To hear Zuckerberg tell it, what Internet.org is doing can't possibly violate net neutrality because he's providing poor families a fractured, Facebook-dominated version of AOL. He's repeatedly implied that if you oppose Facebook's vision (and what it will turn into for generations to come), you're hurting the poor.

With that defense not working, the CEO has taken to the Internet.org website to post a video to try again, announcing that Internet.org is being opened to to a broader selection of websites. And that's great, until you start reading the massive number of restrictions "approved" content must adhere to. Namely, the websites can't integrate "VoIP, video, file transfers, high resolution photos, or high volume of photos." They can't integrate Flash, Javascript or Java applets. They also can't use encryption, something that's increasingly important in developing and developed nations alike.

Now again, Zuckerberg really may have noble intentions here, but the list of restrictions combined with some of the rhetoric from the video suggests an ongoing tone deafness to his critics. After telling a few anecdotes about how Facebook is helping "local fishermen" and "chicken farmers in Zimbabwe," Zuckerberg wades into the meat of his argument, declaring that those opposed to zero rating apps hold an "extreme" definition of net neutrality:

"Some may argue for an extreme definition of net neutrality that says that it’s somehow wrong to offer any more services to support the unconnected, but a reasonable definition of net neutrality is more inclusive. Access equals opportunity. Net neutrality should not prevent access."

Except declaring zero rating to be a core net neutrality violation is far from extreme. The governments of Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Chile, Slovenia, Estonia, Japan, Finland and now potentially India have all passed neutrality rules banning zero rating of apps. Realizing that zero rating makes life more difficult for smaller companies, independents and non-profits isn't extreme, it's common sense. Even with Internet.org's new, wider walled garden gateway, you've still got Facebook declaring what is or what isn't "acceptable content," which by its very nature runs in stark contrast to the definition of net neutrality.

It's already insulting to declare opposition to neutrality a position that's held by "extremists," but Zuckerberg takes things one step further by declaring these folks are engaged in a form of "intellectual purity" that's hurting the poor:

"Are we a community that values people and improving people’s lives above all else, or are we a community that puts the intellectual purity of technology above people’s needs?"

That's numerous times over the last few months where Zuckerberg has implied that if you're opposed to zero rating and Facebook's vision of a new Compuserve for developing nations, you're opposed to helping the poor. That's simply disingenuous and obnoxious. Nothing about opposing zero rating "prevents access," and nobody is stopping Facebook or Internet.org from funding discounted access to the real Internet. Zuckerberg's basically cementing his company's gatekeeper authority over developing nations for generations to come under the bright banner of selfless altruism, then taking offense when told that these countries might just be better off with un-apertured, subsidized access to the real Internet.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: internet.org, mark zuckerberg, net neutrality, poor, security, winners and losers, zero rating
Companies: facebook, internet.org

80 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 6:20am

Im just gona replay that mission in GTA5. Seriously, fuck this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 5 May 2015 @ 6:23am

What were you expecting from a website that is basically a huge dataminer operation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 6:29am

In other news...
...spammer Mark Zuckerberg is still a sociopathic asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 6:36am

Does mark not realize that this reduces the value of his site, as some links that are passed via the personal pages will be zero rated, and some not, and their is no easy way of telling the difference. Further it is very probable that some of the sites of most benefit to the poor, like Khan Academy will not be zero rated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  That. A lot of content inside Facebook comes from the outside. While they are trying hard to make people use Facebook only it's bound to fail in the long run. Instead of trying to build a wall and censor stuff Facebook has the opportunity to act as enablers and add value both to themselves and for the rest of the Internet. It's a pity he's choosing the gatekeeper way. Where have we seen that before?
  
  Seems History comes indeed in repeating cycles.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    I expect to see a FBAA pop up in a few years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BW (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:34am
  
  Uh...He doesn't give a sh**?
  I mean, that's my take.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 6:37am

Fantasy
It must be nice to create your own little reality where everyone lives by your rules because it is for their own good.
Zuckerberg has never had to live in the real world. I hope he gets a reality check before he does much more damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 6:41am

Facebook needs a new CEO
I'm surprised the shareholders haven't replaced him by now, seeing how unfit he is to be in his position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re: Facebook needs a new CEO
  I'm surprised the shareholders haven't replaced him by now, seeing how unfit he is to be in his position.
  
  Isn't FB raking in money? That is his job as far as shareholders are concerned.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 2:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Facebook needs a new CEO
    The stock price over the past few years has remained fairly constant. So by that measure, Zuckerberg probably isn't making shareholders angry, even if they might wish that he could increase the stock valuation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 6:42am

If his intentions were truly to help give internet to the poor, he would take whatever money they're spending to make internet.org zero-rated and spend it on getting poor people connected to the actual internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 7:15am

If my only choice was FacebookInternet[tm] or nothing I'd take it and appreciate it. If people end up with no internet at all as a result of this then this isn't a neutrality issue at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  Facebook isn't the internet, though. Neither is a carefully selected handful of other web sites. They may have value, but to say that giving free access to them is giving free access to the internet is simply a lie.
  
  Also, it certainly is a net neutrality issue. Net neutrality isn't about the problem of poor people getting access to the internet. That's a separate thing, and there are a number of ways to address it without throwing net neutrality to the wolves. Zuckerberg is just choosing a method that harms net neutrality (and helps Facebook).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 8:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    So you're saying that given the choice of only facebook or nothing, they should have nothing because 'in an ideal world' they should have everything?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BigKeithO, 5 May 2015 @ 8:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Correct.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BigKeithO, 5 May 2015 @ 8:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Correct.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, I'm not saying that at all. Not even a little bit. I'm saying that there are ways of addressing the problem without causing harm, but Zuckerberg is choosing a different path.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Teamchaos (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yep, that's what they're saying. If Facebook access is free it gives Facebook too much control. It's all about fighting world domination by corporations driven by evil profit motives. It stopped being about poor folks in India who can't afford Internet access a long time ago. Better for them to have nothing than anything less than an unlimited Internet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please don't put words in my mouth. Especially when they're 100% incorrect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please don't put words in my mouth. Especially when they're 100% incorrect
        
        Okay, that's what most posters seem to be saying. What you're saying is that free access to Facebook would cause harm and "to say that giving free access to them is giving free access to the internet is simply a lie."
        
        So you'd be okay with Zuckerberg's scheme if he didn't call it free access to the Internet? (rhetorical question).
        
        So I'm not putting words in your mouth, answer me this: Would you ever support a corporation offering free connectivity to a limited set of Internet sites? What if the service was provided free by a government entity (presumably to access government and approved corporate sites)?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        James Burkhardt (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No. Because in all such cases it is a violation of net neutrality. The core tenant of net neutrality is that all data coming over the pipe is handled the same. Allowing anyone to pick winners (those who 'the poor' can access for free) and losers (those who you have to pay to access) in the internet game will universally lead to the stifling of innovation and speech.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Does a cafe that advertises free internet access have the right to restrict what sites their patrons can visit, or is that a violation net neutrality as well?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The cafe is not an ISP, so net neutrality doesn't enter into that scenario.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So I'm not putting words in your mouth"
        
        You are, so let me answer your question in the hope of providing clarity.
        
        "So you'd be okay with Zuckerberg's scheme if he didn't call it free access to the Internet?"
        
        No. I only mentioned the deceptive nature of Zuckerberg's portrayal to point out that he's intentionally confusing many things here.
        
        "Would you ever support a corporation offering free connectivity to a limited set of Internet sites? What if the service was provided free by a government entity (presumably to access government and approved corporate sites)?"
        
        These questions are too vague to answer, so let me just restate my position. This isn't about general corporations offering free connectivity to a limited set of websites. This is about ISPs specifically doing that. And I object to it, yes. Government entities aren't in a position to make such an offer unless they happen to be ISPs, so that's a strange question. However, if there are any that are ISPs, then yes, I object to that as well.
        
        The point is that "zero-rated" apps are diametrically opposed to what net neutrality is trying to accomplish (ensuring that the internet stays as level of a playing field as possible).
        
        Zuckerberg, in an extremely offensive manner, is trying to argue that we have to choose between fairness (net neutrality) and helping poor people get access to the internet. He's completely wrong.
        
        This isn't about helping poor people. This is about helping Facebook. If it was about expanding internet access to the poor, then a different approach, one that doesn't encourage the control of the internet by major corporations, would be taken.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl Bode (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Zuckerberg, in an extremely offensive manner, is trying to argue that we have to choose between fairness (net neutrality) and helping poor people get access to the internet. He's completely wrong."
        That's the very heart of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem is, he's also extremely rich, and that buys a lot of legitimacy in the minds of a lot of people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Zuckerberg wants to provide limited free access (from the Internet.org site)
        
        The Internet.org app provides free basic services in markets where internet access may be less affordable. It allows people to browse selected health, employment and local information websites without data charges.
        
        You may think Zuckerberg's manner offensive, but I've traveled in the 3rd world. I've met folks that live on a less than $500/year. It's very hard to believe that providing some access to folks that can't afford any access is better than no access.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 1:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's very hard to believe that providing some access to folks that can't afford any access is better than no access.
        
        Why do you keep framing the issue as a choice between free Facebook and nothing? Are there no other possible scenarios?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Zuckerberg wants to provide limited free access
        
        No. Wrong. Naive. Stupid. Zuckerberg wants to exploit these people, monetize their privacy, and make sure that all they ever know of the Internet is Facebook.
        
        "The best way to keep a prisoner from escaping is to make sure he never knows he's in prison." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's very hard to believe that providing some access to folks that can't afford any access is better than no access."
        
        You keep repeating this talking point as if anyone is arguing with it -- but nobody is. That statement doesn't address the objections being made.
        
        It also doesn't address my main point: that there is more than one way to accomplish the goal of providing affordable (even free) internet access (as in complete internet access, not just the scraps that Zuckerberg is talking about) to the poor, but Zuckerberg has chosen a way that harms the internet as a whole and benefits Facebook.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 6:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Zuckerberg has chosen a way that harms the internet as a whole and benefits Facebook."
        
        I guess I'm more concerned with helping people in poor countries and Internet.org will help them. I don't give a damn if it ruins your idea of a perfect Internet. I don't care if Zuckerberg is obnoxious. I don't care if there is a profit motive involved. We sit here is a rich country and what we're saying to the 3rd world is "let them eat cake". Talk about tone deaf.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2015 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You sound like a complete moron.
        
        Giving the poor in india access to Facebook will do nothing to improve their lives. Investing that money differently and giving them access to the whole internet will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is is not just access to Facebook. You'd sound more intelligent if you had the facts correct.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2015 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The restrictions being applied severely limit what sites they can access. In effect it gives them just enough to be able to apply for low paid jobs that they find on the Internet, but with almost no ability to use the Internet to learn new skills, in particular no video, and no file downloads.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This isn't about helping poor people. This is about helping Facebook.
        
        Absolutely correct. One of the things that people must understand about Zuckerberg is that he's completely driven by greed. You can't possibly analyze anything he says or anything that Facebook does without knowing that -- and keeping it in mind.
        
        If he actually wanted to help poor people, he'd write a $10B check, TODAY, to the cash-starved organizations that are trying to actually help poor people. But this isn't about that. This is about capturing their eyeballs for Facebook before they even realize what's going on. This is about creating a captive audience by being the first to move into the vacuum that currently exists. This is about setting up a monopoly and entrenching it so deeply that it'll take decades to rip out.
        
        So yes, given a choice between Zuckerberg's proposal and nothing, nothing is a vastly preferable choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So I think you just agreed with most of the points I made in my first post (the one you accused me of "putting words in your mouth" that were 100% incorrect)
        
        I posted "If Facebook access is free it gives Facebook too much control." You reference an approach where "that doesn't encourage the control of the internet by major corporations"
        
        I said "It stopped being about poor folks in India who can't afford Internet access a long time ago." - you say in the last paragraph "This isn't about helping poor people".
        
        Sounds like I wasn't 100% wrong about your position.
        
        "Government entities aren't in a position to make such an offer unless they happen to be ISPs, so that's a strange question." Government entities as ISPs? Not that strange as it turns out: http://stopthecap.com/2014/03/06/most-cutting-edge-gigabit-broadband-networks-are-community-owned/
        
        Yo u could argue that municipalities are not government entities, but please don't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Sounds like I wasn't 100% wrong about your position."
        
        I would be very interested in hearing you say what you think my position is, then. I think I've been reasonably clear, but what you're saying doesn't reflect that. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
        
        "You could argue that municipalities are not government entities, but please don't."
        
        Why would I? I never said that the government couldn't be an ISP.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 6:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What you said was "Government entities aren't in a position to make such an offer unless they happen to be ISPs, so that's a strange question." It wasn't a strange question since government entities are ISPs in several cases.
        
        I already stated what I think your position is and, based on what you posted, I wasn't that far off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, I see. So context means little to you and you aren't interested in us understanding each other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me be very clear. I understand your point. I don't agree with you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RTFM, 5 May 2015 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you read? Zuck is saying his Facebook internet supports net neutrality. It doesn't. This is not about all or nothing for poor folks with no internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, people should be excited and willing to enter into a world of digital serfdom, creating profit for a foreign company while being subject to intense surveillance. If that's not neo-colonialism I don't know what is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 8:42am
  
  Re:
  The problem is: What if a company intends to supply the real net in that area? If you have facebooknet there, you have to some degree created a monopoly since competing on price in a poor community is more important than other parameters. Welcome to AT&T and Verizon of the developing world! An ad-driven monopoly punishing you for going outside their world.
  
  Furthermore: Welcome to a world where the internet is walled off to avoid you getting unwanted ideas! The perfect world for censorship and propaganda since facebook has the ultimate control over your experience...
  
  The long term consequences of allowing facebooknet may thus not be ideal in that place, nor is it a good idea in general for net neutrality, since it goes against almost all conventional definitions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 7:31am

"Namely, the websites can't integrate "VoIP, video, file transfers, high resolution photos, or high volume of photos." They can't integrate Flash, Javascript or Java applets. They also can't use encryption"

So... Facebook doesn't even conform to the rules of Facebook's internet.

The rules specifically state: "If websites are found to contain any of the above post-implementation, we will block them until we can confirm that the content has been removed."

Facebook does not work with scripts disabled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:01am
  
  Re:
  I assume that Facebook has a special, stripped-down site that they use for this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Isn't half the point of Facebook uploading images and videos so other people can see? I know they already pick and choose what updates people see, but are they really willing to remove half of what people use Facebook for?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not necessarily. I know people who are very active on Facebook but never upload photos or movies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More than half of my news feed seems to be Pinterests, What Quiz Are You, 22 & 2/3rds Facts You Didn't Care About, You Won't Believe What This Website Hides Under All the Advertisements, I Bet You Won't Share This Because Reverse Psychology and Pictures with Quotes.
        I imagine without access to the outside web, my Facebook news feed would only be about 5-10% usable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe this Facebook Lite will only allow you connect with other people on the same network, so nobody even has access to any of those futuristic things like images to begin with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - alternatives(), 5 May 2015 @ 4:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Isn't half the point of Facebook uploading images and videos so other people can see?
      
      Ahhh, but it isn't a situation for "others to see" as Facebook controls who gets to a copy of what you post on others feeds.
      
      Even if I know person X posted something, Facebook may opt to not show me it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  "Namely, the websites can't integrate "VoIP, video, file transfers, high resolution photos, or high volume of photos."
  
  In other words all the sites that might provide useful information to the poor in a useful form to help them improve their situation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kallethen, 5 May 2015 @ 7:50am

About the no VoIP, video, file transfers, etc.
Something missed in this article (which I read over at ), even Facebook itself will be limited to meet the restrictions. If that holds true, I can at least give credit for dodging the "do as I say, not as I do" pitfall.

I can understand the notion that the restrictions against high bandwidth hogging items as an effort to keep costs down. Still, it's sub-par. It would be better from a philanthropic view to actually subsidize the real Internet, not a filtered version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 8:01am

Right around the 1m39s mark in the video, I mentally completed his sentence as "...then we'll raise hundreds of millions of [dollars]..."

His attempt to come off as magnanimous and wounded by criticism completely fails because he doesn't actually say exactly what's happening. "if...fisherman...free internet...sell more fish..." [by allowing my partners and I to completely dominate their "free" access to advertising in an attempt to get a cut of any extra money they might get from this development] "then we should haven't rules that prevent that."

Zuck is wealthy enough that he could just give money away. He could join up with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and fund such a project without having to include partners that demand advertising access to their new [customers].

All of his excuses sound like he's saying: "...and all this could be yours for the low, low price of lowering your defenses, reducing your definition of net neutrality to nothing via exceptions, and cashing in your ideals for a hefty paycheck from businessmen who are looking to open new markets. Act now and we'll provide a second heap of advertising; just pay shipping and handling!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  Indeed. This is obviously and transparently not a philanthropic venture. This marketing, pure and simple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 8:29am

Compuserve = AOL = Facebook
even if you added all three of these together they would not be the real internet. I can't wait til facebook goes the way of the other two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  I have done my part. Facebook free and better off for it. Looking for an acceptable level of respect when creating new accounts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:33am

Hard time getting worked up now
If the ISPs are giving away access, it seems that have a few options:

1) provide uncapped data to any website, effectively providing complete Internet access for free. Not a great business plan.
2) provide capped data to any website for free.
3) provide uncapped data to a limited number of sites for free.

Option one simply won't work from a business perspective. It comes down to 2 or 3. Either way, in no economically viable universe are the local ISPs in developing countries going to provide substantial VoIP or video streaming services for free.

I'd like to know the alternative is that will provide those services without providing massive government subsidies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: Hard time getting worked up now
  Providing you Item 3 costs more that your Item 1, as it requires the ISP to filter the Internet.
  Caps are a means of manipulating the market, and getting money Indirectly out of people. Mark must think that he will at least cover his costs of doing this from the adverts that he sells, and these are paid for by the people that buy the products. Targeted adverts are the most effective, and they will be targeting the poor to but what suites the corporations, and not what is best for the poor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jakerome (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re: Hard time getting worked up now
    Item 3 costs far less than item 1, because only low bandwidth services are allowed in item 3.
    
    There's no economically sound one to enable item-- free internet for all. The only way free service can be provided is either with massive government subsidies or by instituting limits on either total data or the type of sites allowed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 2:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hard time getting worked up now
      Limited bandwidth leads to people adapting their use of the Internet to work within the constraints that they see. ISP's trying to manage that bandwidth is an the ISP's making decisions for the users and does not allow such adaptive tactics as downloading videos at night for watching latter etc. Sometimes it is worth spending 2-3 hours downloading an hours or less of content, especially when in is informative rather than just entertainment. The Internet offers much of human knowledge, and this proposal prevents people accessing it.
      Let people get to the jobs market only, and the jobs they can seek is usually limited, allow them access to the Internet's knowledge and they can educate themselves for a better job, or learn enough to start their own business.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jakerome (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard time getting worked up now
        That's great. Who's paying for it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 4:50pm
  
  Re: Hard time getting worked up now
  provide ... VoIP ... I'd like to know the alternative is that will provide those services without providing massive government subsidies.
  
  Huh. Google Voice costs $0 and I can call out with a SPA-841 and asterisk.
  
  Somehow Sprint charged $100 per month for phone service and Republic uses Sprint and charges $10 for MORE voice service.
  
  This idea of "massive government subsidies" - where ARE you getting it from?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jakerome (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 2:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Hard time getting worked up now
    Google Voice costs $0 because the end user has already paid for internet access.
    
    Try using Google Voice without paying for internet access.
    
    Obviously layering VOIP on top of already paid for internet access costs pretty much zero.
    
    So yes, if someone pays for internet access-- maybe Facebook, maybe the government, maybe the tooth fairy-- then VOIP is easy to add on.
    
    But you're living in a fantasy world if you think ISPs or Facebook are going to provide unlimited, uncapped internet access for free. And without that free internet access, there is no $0 Google Voice.
    
    No go ahead and take some new bit out of context and make another attempt at a cogent argument.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 9:48am

Zuckerberg "responds"
Imaginary Newsie: "Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Chile, Slovenia, Estonia, Japan, Finland and now potentially Indiahave all passed neutrality rules banning zero rating of apps. Don't you think that this will interfere with your plans for internet.org?"

Imaginary Zuckerberg response: "No worries: we'll resolve all those nuisance laws just as soon as TPP is signed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 5 May 2015 @ 10:07am

In short: facebook-boss wants money from the sites you go to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 11:45am

Typical of liberals
Seriously, what do you expect of a lib? They want full control of your life so they can "take care of you". Why is this a surprise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re: Typical of liberals
  Yawn.
  
  Relevance?
  
  And please don't pull that "libs wanna control your life" 'tude in a week when the Right at SCOTUS is trying to control who can marry whom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 4:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Typical of liberals
    It is relevant because Mark is a major lib and this is typical of libs.
    
    Marriage is a morality issue, unlike libs desire for power over others.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 4:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Typical of liberals
      It is relevant because Mark is a major lib and this is typical of libs.
      
      Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
      Zuck: Just ask
      Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
      [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
      Zuck: People just submitted it.
      Zuck: I don't know why.
      Zuck: They "trust me"
      Zuck: Dumb fucks
      
      The above is all one needs to know about Mr. Zuckerberg. But do go on, explain how the above is 'liberal'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 5:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Typical of liberals
      It is relevant because Mark is a major lib and this is typical of libs.
      
      Zuckerberg is not doing this out of an ideological desire to control peoples' lives because he's "liberal". He's doing it because his goal is to sell as much advertising as possible, and he does that by collecting as much information as possible from as many people as possible.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 11:59am

A Little Pregnant
"an 'extreme' definition of net neutrality"

It's not extreme. Either you have NN, or you don't. A "little bit of a walled garden" is immediately 100% NOT a neutral network.

That's the funny thing about stuff like NN, pregnancy, binary bits. You either got it, or you don't.

I'm actually not dead-against Internet.org, but I sure don't think it offers NN. I think it *could* be OK, so long as the walled garden content providers PAY the carrier the same rate per MB to carry the data to the customers as the customers would pay for any other content, AND the users are in no way blocked from other content. This would make it like 1-800 phone numbers where the businesses pay the toll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hideous, 5 May 2015 @ 12:39pm

Hey, lay off CompuServe
I don't mind you dissing AOL, but lay off CompuServe, which never operated like Zuckerberg's monstrosity but just charged users by the hour. (Over its long life, CompuServe did offer a variety of pricing promotions, teasers, and even free access for leaders who could attract paying followers, but CompuServe never made deals with phone companies to discourage people from dialing-up other services!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: Hey, lay off CompuServe
  I agree. CompuServe was a decent operation on the whole.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 1:17pm

All these comparisons to Compuserve and AOL..

Where's the love for Prodigy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kronomex, 5 May 2015 @ 2:45pm

I dropped out of Farcebook several years ago because I was sick and tired of being bombarded with advertisements and other invasive crap. So A few days ago I thought I would make use of the VPN and have a another look. Signed up using fake name, etc and within minutes was being pestered with, you guessed it, advertising and other invasive crap. Cancelled (supposedly) the account and won't be going back again.

This has nothing to do with helping the poor it's all about control and power and making even more money. What a philanthropist he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2015 @ 12:07am
  
  Re:
  That is the thing. Some people are fooled into thinking that Zuckerberg does this out of compassion and with no expected return. In reality this is a hardcore business case and should be evaluated as such.
  
  The scheme relies on providing internet access to an unserved group.
  
  But the effect is a monopolising of internet service and a high degree of control over the people. Facebook has been known to carry out social experiments/behavioural analysis. This is an almost ideal place to sell experiment times to behavioural analysts. Advertising is a given. And effects of the way they are picking or removing will be problematic in their shaping of the users perspective.
  
  Overall it is a very problematic concept. Anti-competitive, walled and a human experiment ground. If you are willing to sell your soul for water, it might sound attractive, but over time it will be far more of a problem for the countries accepting it, than a growth accelerator.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 2:47pm

Some of the people would forgo internet instead of getting the Facebook internet.
I actually have a gay friend who had this deal on his phone. It was maddening when I wanted to show him news stories or videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 3:36pm

knowledge is power, and power corrupts; these clothes have no emperor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2015 @ 3:47pm

But you're living in a fantasy world if you think ISPs or Facebook are going to provide unlimited, uncapped internet access for free.

Really? Huh. Because mesh wireless networks are, right now, doing IP traffic at $0.

And open source software can be at $0 showing human effort and thinking can be at $0 if one opts to pay nothing out of pocket.

And what is REALLY interesting is the big backbone ISPs will peer with each other at MAEs for $0 cost with other big ISPs.

Try using Google Voice without paying for internet access.

Seems to work fine on the open WiFi I've tried. Again, $0 out of my pocket.

And the Republic Wireless phone that I do pay $10 a month for worked on the same open WiFi I tried.

No go ahead and take some new bit out of context and make another attempt at a cogent argument.

Or you COULD admit that our host Mike's arguments about the long tail and low cost can create $0 access. But that would make you wrong and your ego won't allow that, will it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]