Where Did It All Go Wrong?
May 12, 2016 9:28 AM Subscribe
Free Basics: Facebook's Biggest Setback From Zuckerberg’s vantage point, high above the connected world he had helped create, India was a largely blank map.
Many of its citizens – hundreds of millions of people – were clueless about the internet’s powers. If only they could see how easily they could form a community, how quickly they could turn into buyers and sellers of anything, how effortlessly they could find anything they needed – and so much more that they didn’t. Zuckerberg was convinced that Facebook could win them over, and even more convinced that this would change their lives for the better. He would bring India’s rural poor online quickly, and in great numbers, with an irresistible proposition: users would pay nothing at all to access a version of the internet curated by Facebook.
Many of its citizens – hundreds of millions of people – were clueless about the internet’s powers. If only they could see how easily they could form a community, how quickly they could turn into buyers and sellers of anything, how effortlessly they could find anything they needed – and so much more that they didn’t. Zuckerberg was convinced that Facebook could win them over, and even more convinced that this would change their lives for the better. He would bring India’s rural poor online quickly, and in great numbers, with an irresistible proposition: users would pay nothing at all to access a version of the internet curated by Facebook.
Marc Andreessen, the powerful venture capitalist who sits on Facebook’s board, contemptuously suggested a misguided resentment of the west was to blame. “Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for India for decades,” he told his 500,000 Twitter followers. “Why stop now?”
Ooh...nice. Sums up Facebook's attitude going into this quite succinctly.
posted by vacapinta at 9:38 AM on May 12, 2016 [46 favorites]
Ooh...nice. Sums up Facebook's attitude going into this quite succinctly.
posted by vacapinta at 9:38 AM on May 12, 2016 [46 favorites]
Yeah, it definitely sounds like they really, insultingly underestimated the ability of India's populace to understand what was going to happen to their access to information if this went through:
All of a sudden, a shockingly large number of Indians had been drawn into a loud and raucous public argument about the intricacies of the country’s telecoms policy. On one side, there was the unlikely sight of a popular online rebellion, among young and old alike, in favour of net neutrality – a concept almost nobody had heard of a few months earlier.posted by griphus at 9:44 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
...
There was no mention of Facebook or Free Basics. “Facebook did not figure much in the discussions,” a person involved in the telecoms regulator’s deliberations said. Instead, the regulator turned the debate’s glare away from Facebook, and on to the larger subject of net neutrality. By resolving the larger issue, they thought, the Free Basics question would sort itself out.
Zuck forgot that not being knowledgeable about computers doesn't mean someone is stupid.
I don't think smart or stupid comes into it. Zuckerberg is both smarter than a lot of people realize, and able to afford _amazing_ advice these days, but computers are machines made of people's ideas and the fact that a lot of our cultural background and history comes to bear in this space is very often overlooked.
Facebook's program had a shot at being successful, to my outsiders eye (and being a benefit for the people using it, though I'm not fond of the context), but Andreesen's incredibly ignorant comment very effectively cut off any shot Facebook had at securing supportive local allies. From what I can see from the outside, that started the PR avalanche that doomed the project.
posted by mhoye at 9:51 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think smart or stupid comes into it. Zuckerberg is both smarter than a lot of people realize, and able to afford _amazing_ advice these days, but computers are machines made of people's ideas and the fact that a lot of our cultural background and history comes to bear in this space is very often overlooked.
Facebook's program had a shot at being successful, to my outsiders eye (and being a benefit for the people using it, though I'm not fond of the context), but Andreesen's incredibly ignorant comment very effectively cut off any shot Facebook had at securing supportive local allies. From what I can see from the outside, that started the PR avalanche that doomed the project.
posted by mhoye at 9:51 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Andreessen comments came after the ruling from the regulators was handed down.
posted by griphus at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by griphus at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
I don't think smart or stupid comes into it.
It really does, though. There's a mentality I've seen among the techie set that intelligence is tied to their field, and thus people who aren't techies aren't as smart. Which is why they're always caught flatfooted when people see around their ideas.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:59 AM on May 12, 2016 [36 favorites]
It really does, though. There's a mentality I've seen among the techie set that intelligence is tied to their field, and thus people who aren't techies aren't as smart. Which is why they're always caught flatfooted when people see around their ideas.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:59 AM on May 12, 2016 [36 favorites]
I mean, securing allies and trying to alter or repeal the ruling in some way would be a thing Facebook/Zuckerberg could engage in, but I think at that point, when a recent government decision has been made and you're not happy with it and decide to put the full weight of your corporate juggernaut behind your desire to make a foreign government do what you want, you're falling into cartoonish supervillainy. Which is probably something Facebook would want to avoid doing super publicly after the one PR black eye they already got.
posted by griphus at 10:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
In March, Zuckerberg was photographed on a jog in Beijing, where he was mocked online for declining to wear a face mask in deference to his hosts, despite the smog. The next day, Zuckerberg – who has been brushing up on his Mandarin – had a meeting with China’s propaganda chief, Liu Yunshan. According to official reports in the local media, the Facebook founder vowed he would work with Chinese peers to “build a better world in cyberspace”.Or maybe not.
posted by griphus at 10:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm more of a "the internet is a place where misguided freaks and hippies build the star trek version of a utopian future" than a "loookie all that money this internet's leaving on the table" kind of gal.
For real, facebook can go die in a fire for all I care.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [27 favorites]
For real, facebook can go die in a fire for all I care.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [27 favorites]
It's dumb to accept a free gift from a corporation that's beholden to shareholders that expect a profit.
They were so obviously trying to push an agenda while also looking like they were "doing good." I can buy the idea that a restricted web is better than no web at all. But when you build one kind of infrastructure, it gets harder for other competitors to establish, even if they're better. And it sets a low bar for those competitors. "Oh, you get free Facebook and Wikipedia, with 10c/MB elsewhere? What if we throw in free Spotify as well?" Free as in speech internet gets pushed out of the Overton window.
The whole thing reminds me of those experiments where party A and B can split $10 how party A chooses, but if B does not agree, both sides get nothing. If A offers B a penny and B rejects, maybe A shouldn't be calling B irrational and instead realize human interactions are based on judgments of goodwill and trust.
posted by mccarty.tim at 10:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
They were so obviously trying to push an agenda while also looking like they were "doing good." I can buy the idea that a restricted web is better than no web at all. But when you build one kind of infrastructure, it gets harder for other competitors to establish, even if they're better. And it sets a low bar for those competitors. "Oh, you get free Facebook and Wikipedia, with 10c/MB elsewhere? What if we throw in free Spotify as well?" Free as in speech internet gets pushed out of the Overton window.
The whole thing reminds me of those experiments where party A and B can split $10 how party A chooses, but if B does not agree, both sides get nothing. If A offers B a penny and B rejects, maybe A shouldn't be calling B irrational and instead realize human interactions are based on judgments of goodwill and trust.
posted by mccarty.tim at 10:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
Yeah, my impression (perhaps wrong?) was that even after the ruling, there was still a path for Facebook to make a lot of progress in India, and that Andreesen's comment buried them.
There's a mentality I've seen among the techie set that intelligence is tied to their field, and thus people who aren't techies aren't as smart.
Oh, yeah - Engineers Disease is very real.
posted by mhoye at 10:04 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
There's a mentality I've seen among the techie set that intelligence is tied to their field, and thus people who aren't techies aren't as smart.
Oh, yeah - Engineers Disease is very real.
posted by mhoye at 10:04 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
“Facebook came and shoved its ass in our faces.”
While internet access sits at under 40% in India, Facebook assuming the population overall was somehow unintelligent or unsophisticated was an enormous mistake. Indians have been rather good "buyers and sellers of anything" for quite some time. Just because the technology is new doesn't mean they can't sniff out a deal that stinks.
posted by Kabanos at 10:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
While internet access sits at under 40% in India, Facebook assuming the population overall was somehow unintelligent or unsophisticated was an enormous mistake. Indians have been rather good "buyers and sellers of anything" for quite some time. Just because the technology is new doesn't mean they can't sniff out a deal that stinks.
posted by Kabanos at 10:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
If you offer something wonderful but with strings attached, they're not declining the gift, they're declining the strings.
Why do they pretend it's a mystery? Andreesen is playing dumb to hide how nakedly avaricious Free Basics was in its very concept.
posted by chimaera at 10:10 AM on May 12, 2016 [31 favorites]
Why do they pretend it's a mystery? Andreesen is playing dumb to hide how nakedly avaricious Free Basics was in its very concept.
posted by chimaera at 10:10 AM on May 12, 2016 [31 favorites]
mhoye, I've always thought of Engineer's Disease as, "You're having an issue with not_my_business thing? I could take a look and see..."
posted by Slackermagee at 10:14 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by Slackermagee at 10:14 AM on May 12, 2016
Engineer's Disease refers to being an expert in one area, and taking the ego and confidence from that area to unrelated areas.
For example, say you're a senior engineer at a router company. You know everything there is to know about Ethernet, packet routing, killing broadcast loops, dealing with radio interference. Your coworkers admire you and praise your intuition every day.
Then one night, you read the Wikipedia article on cancer, and get convinced you're seeing something oncologists never saw. You start emailing medial universities and get many brush-offs and rejections. The occasional researcher politely explains which terms you misunderstood and refers you to literature that shows your idea would not work. You take this extremely personally, and reply to them with a list of your patents. Nobody else ignores you like this, and you conclude oncologists are know-nothing jerks.
posted by mccarty.tim at 10:21 AM on May 12, 2016 [34 favorites]
For example, say you're a senior engineer at a router company. You know everything there is to know about Ethernet, packet routing, killing broadcast loops, dealing with radio interference. Your coworkers admire you and praise your intuition every day.
Then one night, you read the Wikipedia article on cancer, and get convinced you're seeing something oncologists never saw. You start emailing medial universities and get many brush-offs and rejections. The occasional researcher politely explains which terms you misunderstood and refers you to literature that shows your idea would not work. You take this extremely personally, and reply to them with a list of your patents. Nobody else ignores you like this, and you conclude oncologists are know-nothing jerks.
posted by mccarty.tim at 10:21 AM on May 12, 2016 [34 favorites]
"In March, Zuckerberg was photographed on a jog in Beijing, where he was mocked online for declining to wear a face mask in deference to his hosts, despite the smog. The next day, Zuckerberg – who has been brushing up on his Mandarin – had a meeting with China’s propaganda chief, Liu Yunshan. According to official reports in the local media, the Facebook founder vowed he would work with Chinese peers to “build a better world in cyberspace”."
"The synergy is obvious," Zuckerberg reportedly said. "Walled city, walled garden — FaceBook walls, Great Walls! China is a natural partner."
posted by klangklangston at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The synergy is obvious," Zuckerberg reportedly said. "Walled city, walled garden — FaceBook walls, Great Walls! China is a natural partner."
posted by klangklangston at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
"If you offer something wonderful but with strings attached, they're not declining the gift, they're declining the strings.
Why do they pretend it's a mystery? Andreesen is playing dumb to hide how nakedly avaricious Free Basics was in its very concept."
"Why do these cattle keep rejecting our free bat program? Don't they know guano is an excellent fertilizer?"
posted by klangklangston at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2016
Why do they pretend it's a mystery? Andreesen is playing dumb to hide how nakedly avaricious Free Basics was in its very concept."
"Why do these cattle keep rejecting our free bat program? Don't they know guano is an excellent fertilizer?"
posted by klangklangston at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2016
Walled city, walled garden — FaceBook walls, Great Walls! China is a natural partner.
"Check out my taco salad it's got a wall to keep the good stuff in and the bad stuff out. I love Hispanics!"
posted by chimaera at 10:29 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Check out my taco salad it's got a wall to keep the good stuff in and the bad stuff out. I love Hispanics!"
posted by chimaera at 10:29 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Indo in indoeuropean means we were hacked like this a long time ago.
Jesus America at least go metric, then fuck with others.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 10:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Jesus America at least go metric, then fuck with others.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 10:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I can't speak to the way in which the program was promoted, but I've followed it closely as it has evolved, and the most recent proposals for it from Facebook strike me as something much better than klangklangston's guano.
As I understand it, the current program is less ham-handed than its predecessor: *any* Web site meeting certain technical guidelines for low bandwidth use may arrange to be part of the program. And the version of Facebook offered this way itself is low-bandwidth and non-graphic-ey enough to qualify under its own guidelines. I was thinking it might be interesting to have one of the requirements for being under the FB umbrella that one's content be licensed under Creative Commons, and perhaps subscribe to a set of privacy promises that aren't otherwise built into the day-to-day Web.
I think these changes are intriguing, and make it much harder to outright dismiss the program, even from a perspective (as is mine) sympathetic to net neutrality. I'm not sold on it, but my instinct is that something like it could provide a good opening where states aren't themselves stepping up anytime soon to provide Internet access full stop.
So in the absence of a more direct way to get people online -- i.e. through gov't subsidy or through charity -- a program that persuades an ISP, as this one did, to give free access on a nondiscriminatory basis to web sites that meet standards for low-bandwidth usage, is something perhaps worth working through. Of course it's up to the Indian government to decide what will work for India.
posted by zittrain at 10:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
As I understand it, the current program is less ham-handed than its predecessor: *any* Web site meeting certain technical guidelines for low bandwidth use may arrange to be part of the program. And the version of Facebook offered this way itself is low-bandwidth and non-graphic-ey enough to qualify under its own guidelines. I was thinking it might be interesting to have one of the requirements for being under the FB umbrella that one's content be licensed under Creative Commons, and perhaps subscribe to a set of privacy promises that aren't otherwise built into the day-to-day Web.
I think these changes are intriguing, and make it much harder to outright dismiss the program, even from a perspective (as is mine) sympathetic to net neutrality. I'm not sold on it, but my instinct is that something like it could provide a good opening where states aren't themselves stepping up anytime soon to provide Internet access full stop.
So in the absence of a more direct way to get people online -- i.e. through gov't subsidy or through charity -- a program that persuades an ISP, as this one did, to give free access on a nondiscriminatory basis to web sites that meet standards for low-bandwidth usage, is something perhaps worth working through. Of course it's up to the Indian government to decide what will work for India.
posted by zittrain at 10:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
The flaw was simple - Zuck forgot that not being knowledgeable about computers doesn't mean someone is stupid. Which is why they saw through his wooden horse and told him "no thanks".
Well also I think they discovered that people have a more sophisticated understanding of the business of computers than they had assumed.
posted by atoxyl at 11:00 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well also I think they discovered that people have a more sophisticated understanding of the business of computers than they had assumed.
posted by atoxyl at 11:00 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would prefer an entity other than facebook (or any other silicon valley behemoth) to be the face of the idea what "the internet" is for the world. In this entire model, the internet appears to be a subtexted branding strategy for facebook and that to me is gross.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
sophisticated understanding of the business of computers
Could just cut off the "of computers" there, since the plan didn't differentiate itself much from "control the water" strategies that have been used since the invention of political power.
posted by rhizome at 11:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Could just cut off the "of computers" there, since the plan didn't differentiate itself much from "control the water" strategies that have been used since the invention of political power.
posted by rhizome at 11:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Metafilter: klangklangston's guano
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:19 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:19 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or to give us a little bit more credit…
Metafilter: something much better than klangklangston's guano.
posted by Kabanos at 11:43 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: something much better than klangklangston's guano.
posted by Kabanos at 11:43 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
> *any* Web site meeting certain technical guidelines for low bandwidth use may arrange to be part of the program.
Why not provide the free access to everyone, but with a very low monthly bandwidth cap? Whip up an app that lets users see where they are in their usage, heck, one that lets them see it getting used up in real time, and they'll quickly figure out which sites are low-bandwidth. Heck, people might start curating white lists of low-bandwidth sites.
But that puts control in the hands of the users, and it's clear that everyone who plans to be in the bandwidth supply business is slavering to be able to control access on a content-supplier-by-content-supplier basis. And there's one economic principle that MetaFilter has taught me: Rent seekers gonna seek rents.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:04 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Why not provide the free access to everyone, but with a very low monthly bandwidth cap? Whip up an app that lets users see where they are in their usage, heck, one that lets them see it getting used up in real time, and they'll quickly figure out which sites are low-bandwidth. Heck, people might start curating white lists of low-bandwidth sites.
But that puts control in the hands of the users, and it's clear that everyone who plans to be in the bandwidth supply business is slavering to be able to control access on a content-supplier-by-content-supplier basis. And there's one economic principle that MetaFilter has taught me: Rent seekers gonna seek rents.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:04 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
"As I understand it, the current program is less ham-handed than its predecessor: *any* Web site meeting certain technical guidelines for low bandwidth use may arrange to be part of the program. And the version of Facebook offered this way itself is low-bandwidth and non-graphic-ey enough to qualify under its own guidelines. I was thinking it might be interesting to have one of the requirements for being under the FB umbrella that one's content be licensed under Creative Commons, and perhaps subscribe to a set of privacy promises that aren't otherwise built into the day-to-day Web."
As the All India Bakchod folks pointed out, elsewhere in their proposal they mention that they're the sole arbiters of the technical standards, that they can unilaterally change the technical standards, and that they effectively disallow other social networks.
So, an attempt to come up with an engineering solution to a political and economic problem that still gives Facebook disproportionate and anti-competitive control.
I don't know enough about the copyright regulatory scheme in India to be able to comment on that, but since Facebook's model (and most internet platforms) basically can't comply with many licenses under CC, and would be challenging for their economic model to implement further privacy controls, these seem like utopic non-starters for an actual proposal.
posted by klangklangston at 12:18 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
As the All India Bakchod folks pointed out, elsewhere in their proposal they mention that they're the sole arbiters of the technical standards, that they can unilaterally change the technical standards, and that they effectively disallow other social networks.
So, an attempt to come up with an engineering solution to a political and economic problem that still gives Facebook disproportionate and anti-competitive control.
I don't know enough about the copyright regulatory scheme in India to be able to comment on that, but since Facebook's model (and most internet platforms) basically can't comply with many licenses under CC, and would be challenging for their economic model to implement further privacy controls, these seem like utopic non-starters for an actual proposal.
posted by klangklangston at 12:18 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is it economically catastrophic to not have facebook or to have facebook? Tough call....
posted by srboisvert at 12:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by srboisvert at 12:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I read this article via Facebook. I normally skip their Easy Share/Fake Browser articles (marked by the little lightening icon) but the irony was too delicious.
I've adjusted my settings to indicate my preference that articles open in a real browser numerous times, but it has become clear that this is all just performance. They want me to feel I have control, without yielding anything.
posted by mountmccabe at 1:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've adjusted my settings to indicate my preference that articles open in a real browser numerous times, but it has become clear that this is all just performance. They want me to feel I have control, without yielding anything.
posted by mountmccabe at 1:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'll remember that quote from Marc Andreessen the next time one of the perennial articles on how he's some kind of internet super-genius pops up.
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:23 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:23 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
One day someone will look at a blank map and think, 'hey, I bet there's actually stuff there! Stuff people care about! And People! They're just not on my map!', instead of assuming that it means it's sitting there as an empty vessel for whatever you want to fill it with. Not holding my breath though.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 1:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by lesbiassparrow at 1:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Benito,I think the ISPs aren't much interested in such a program -- they'd rather give unlimited access to a small sample of stuff than limited access to everything. And I think it's less about total volume of bits than about bandwidth at any given moment, which might ace out image- or video-heavy sites from being part of a free program. All of this is against a backdrop of Facebook not, as I understand it, paying the ISPs for anything. They're just saying: why don't you let us help you offer this program to prospective customers, and you'll end up happy when those getting basics choose to convert up to full access. (If the ISPs wanted to just offer the program themselves, maybe that'd be better, but that could create its own net neutrality issues.)
On klangklangton's point, I think that'd be part of a negotiation. Facebook might be open to having someone or something else (who?) be the arbiter of who does and doesn't meet the standards. (After all, the standards are in principle mostly there for the ISPs' sake, not Facebook's.) But it's true that under the current proposal, Facebook would as a technical matter proxy everything that qualifies as an offering under Free Basics. That could give people pause.
posted by zittrain at 2:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
On klangklangton's point, I think that'd be part of a negotiation. Facebook might be open to having someone or something else (who?) be the arbiter of who does and doesn't meet the standards. (After all, the standards are in principle mostly there for the ISPs' sake, not Facebook's.) But it's true that under the current proposal, Facebook would as a technical matter proxy everything that qualifies as an offering under Free Basics. That could give people pause.
posted by zittrain at 2:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll remember that quote from Marc Andreessen the next time one of the perennial articles on how he's some kind of internet super-genius pops up.
He's just your garden variety tech-smart, everything-else-idiot billionaire who thinks he worked harder because his lottery ticket paid off and others' didn't. Barf in a Starbucks in certain Bay Area zip codes and you'll hit one or two.
posted by chimaera at 2:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
He's just your garden variety tech-smart, everything-else-idiot billionaire who thinks he worked harder because his lottery ticket paid off and others' didn't. Barf in a Starbucks in certain Bay Area zip codes and you'll hit one or two.
posted by chimaera at 2:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I recently met a representative from Afghanistan's version of the FCC, who said he had come to DC on a State Department-sponsored trip. He sounded pretty keen on Free Basics (though they were evaluating some other services). I believe they have something like 10% internet penetration—mainly on cell phones—and want to rapidly expand access. I brought up the situation in India and asked him if they had a stance on net neutrality. Couldn't quite get an answer.
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 2:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 2:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The flaw was simple - Zuck forgot that not being knowledgeable about computers doesn't mean someone is stupid. Which is why they saw through his wooden horse and told him "no thanks".
Well also I think they discovered that people have a more sophisticated understanding of the business of computers than they had assumed.
I wonder how many of the engineers building this stuff for these companies (or CEOs of Microsoft, Google, Nokia) went to the very same school as the folks on the other side of the table? Ironic isn't it, to assume that something changed in their brain when they got on a plane vs those who stayed at home? Come now.
posted by infini at 3:12 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well also I think they discovered that people have a more sophisticated understanding of the business of computers than they had assumed.
I wonder how many of the engineers building this stuff for these companies (or CEOs of Microsoft, Google, Nokia) went to the very same school as the folks on the other side of the table? Ironic isn't it, to assume that something changed in their brain when they got on a plane vs those who stayed at home? Come now.
posted by infini at 3:12 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Marc Andreessen, the powerful venture capitalist who sits on Facebook’s board, contemptuously suggested a misguided resentment of the west was to blame. “Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for India for decades,” he told his 500,000 Twitter followers. “Why stop now?”
Pride will make you tighten your belt. The market only opened up in the 1990s.
posted by infini at 3:17 PM on May 12, 2016
Pride will make you tighten your belt. The market only opened up in the 1990s.
posted by infini at 3:17 PM on May 12, 2016
> Benito,I think the ISPs aren't much interested in such a program ... why don't you let us help you offer this program to prospective customers, and you'll end up happy when those getting basics choose to convert up to full access.
That's my assumption too. I just think we/India shouldn't necessarily let ISPs have the last word in what gets done. Yes, ISPs and Facebook will like the results, but bottom tier customer will have less choice, and it's also likely to strangle in the cradle any Indian-grown competitor to Facebook. Modi seems like the kind of politician who will consider the effect of government actions on even the poorest Indian citizen. I'm glad to see them not just giving in.
Also, ISPs could go ahead and offer my proposal without any net neutrality issues. I don't know enough about who's planning on paying what to really make a judgement, but it sounds better than Facebooks. Plus, you don't have to listen to Marc Andressen.
(Recognizing your name I feel a little out of my league debating net neutrality with you. Oh well, that's the Internet, like All India Bakchod says.)
posted by benito.strauss at 3:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's my assumption too. I just think we/India shouldn't necessarily let ISPs have the last word in what gets done. Yes, ISPs and Facebook will like the results, but bottom tier customer will have less choice, and it's also likely to strangle in the cradle any Indian-grown competitor to Facebook. Modi seems like the kind of politician who will consider the effect of government actions on even the poorest Indian citizen. I'm glad to see them not just giving in.
Also, ISPs could go ahead and offer my proposal without any net neutrality issues. I don't know enough about who's planning on paying what to really make a judgement, but it sounds better than Facebooks. Plus, you don't have to listen to Marc Andressen.
(Recognizing your name I feel a little out of my league debating net neutrality with you. Oh well, that's the Internet, like All India Bakchod says.)
posted by benito.strauss at 3:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
One day someone will look at a blank map and think, 'hey, I bet there's actually stuff there! Stuff people care about! And People! They're just not on my map!', instead of assuming that it means it's sitting there as an empty vessel for whatever you want to fill it with.
I'm seeing this happen with the African market right now. And I was a fly on the advertising industry's wall when the Indian market opened. Wendell wendell. When will they learn. The irony of Facebook (social media) is such that it makes the natives restless much more virally even while you're trying to sell it to them.
posted by infini at 3:25 PM on May 12, 2016
I'm seeing this happen with the African market right now. And I was a fly on the advertising industry's wall when the Indian market opened. Wendell wendell. When will they learn. The irony of Facebook (social media) is such that it makes the natives restless much more virally even while you're trying to sell it to them.
posted by infini at 3:25 PM on May 12, 2016
Anndrreeeson sounded like he wanted his Indians docile and typing code on the computer, while checking for Y2K bugs.
posted by infini at 3:34 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 3:34 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
You know what the stupidest part of this whole pile of stupid is? It's right in the opening, where they essentially say in their pyramid scheme there is only one more level to go, but they need that level to satisfy their investors expectations of growth.
Maybe this is why Musk, et al, are so hot for space. They NEED alien worlds full of beings who are not yet on !ps'cgt!kzbook to keep satisfying those investors.
Capitalism is just plain stupid.
posted by maxwelton at 6:37 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe this is why Musk, et al, are so hot for space. They NEED alien worlds full of beings who are not yet on !ps'cgt!kzbook to keep satisfying those investors.
Capitalism is just plain stupid.
posted by maxwelton at 6:37 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yep. I'm no markets nerd, but it occurred to me years ago that all of the pie in the sky stuff: driverless cars, space rockets, facial recognition, and so on, is all to assuage investors and investors-to-be that there are future markets that they aim to dominate. The technologies never work for a long, long time, so the concepts get turned into a perpetual motion machine for stock interest.
posted by rhizome at 6:54 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 6:54 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Guess you can say what you want about the debate, but the way India worked like a democracy should here was reassuring.
posted by skepticallypleased at 7:53 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by skepticallypleased at 7:53 PM on May 12, 2016
Before TED explained the problems of unlimited growth, we had King Size Canary (Vimeo) to clarify them.
posted by hexatron at 7:59 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by hexatron at 7:59 PM on May 12, 2016
skepticallypleased: agreed. In particular:
Also, the "there are back-channel ways of getting things done" assumption strikes me as an approach powerful people take in lots of situations, not just in India; I wonder how much Facebook really tries to collaborate with regulators in other countries.
posted by brainwane at 7:54 AM on May 13, 2016
“I think the mistake that people make is that they think, ‘India is this developing country and there are these back-channel ways of getting things done,’” the Facebook employee told me. “In essence, the mistake of thinking that a third-world country is a banana republic. So institutions, the public, the press – they can be bypassed.”India's governmental institutions are by no means completely immune to foreign pressure but it's good to know that civil society and genuine regulatory oversight are still a substantive counterweight to the likes of Facebook.
Also, the "there are back-channel ways of getting things done" assumption strikes me as an approach powerful people take in lots of situations, not just in India; I wonder how much Facebook really tries to collaborate with regulators in other countries.
posted by brainwane at 7:54 AM on May 13, 2016
It's a pretty naked euphemism for corruption, that's for sure.
posted by rhizome at 1:03 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by rhizome at 1:03 PM on May 13, 2016
So who campaigned against Free Basics?
Ans: The educated, urban Indian who already has the ability to pay for a "neutral" internet service! The population that was supposed to benefit from Free Basics surely did not know someone from 10K miles away decided to take over their lives (for good, I hope?) and that the defenders of the neutral net thwarted one man's evil designs!
After thinking about what happened, I am not sure if I can think straight anymore :)
posted by TheIndiaGuy at 9:51 PM on May 23, 2016
Ans: The educated, urban Indian who already has the ability to pay for a "neutral" internet service! The population that was supposed to benefit from Free Basics surely did not know someone from 10K miles away decided to take over their lives (for good, I hope?) and that the defenders of the neutral net thwarted one man's evil designs!
After thinking about what happened, I am not sure if I can think straight anymore :)
posted by TheIndiaGuy at 9:51 PM on May 23, 2016
Also the urban educated Indian who had the ability to build apps for local context and needs, which may or may not ever have had a chance to enter the walled garden of free.
posted by infini at 3:56 AM on May 24, 2016
posted by infini at 3:56 AM on May 24, 2016
« Older Web 0.0 | "I started with a box and some leg sticks." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [27 favorites]