Well don't tell Facebook, those greedy bastards. They'd probably provide the people in those countries with Facebook-only smartphones, or Facebook-only Internet connections, or something else horrible and dystopian like that.
I think people go way too hard on these Facebook-sponsored internet deals.
Like, yeah, they help build Facebook's brand and place it in a position of market dominance... but they're doing that by providing low-cost internet to vast populations that otherwise couldn't afford it.
There are millions of people that can talk to their relatives and have better access to government services and communicate with people they've never met, that would still be cut off if not for Facebook.
> but they're doing that by providing low-cost internet to vast populations that otherwise couldn't afford it.
This is a tad misleading. Your sentence implies they are given access to 'the internet', but in reality it's a select list of Facebook-approved sites that are slimmed down. Obviously, this sets a bad precedent and is anti-competitive (other social media platforms on Internet.org, etc.). This is far from the internet: this is a locked-down Facebook-controlled vision of what they'd like the internet to be.
> There are millions of people that can talk to their relatives and have better access to government services and communicate with people they've never met, that would still be cut off if not for Facebook.
No, none of the connectivity is because of Facebook. They didn't build the connectivity; they're a parasite on it. What they add is a layer of disconnection, under their control, that they use to exploit.
> No, none of the connectivity is because of Facebook. They didn't build the connectivity; they're a parasite on it.
That doesn't make sense.
If Facebook was purely parasitic in these deals, people would just buy regular internet subscriptions (yes, there are counter-arguments to that, but the general principle holds). The fact that they don't implies that there are large swathes of people who can't afford internet subscriptions, and therefore would not get any of the benefits of one without Facebook.
What is a layer of "disconnection"? Is this a new rhetorical device?
Facebook does actually help build the connectivity up in these countries so they do in fact pay for the infrastructure. It is still exploitative in that they mislead folks in developing countries to think they have access to the internet when instead they're on Facebook's private network. But they do pay the cost of connectivity, at least somewhat.
> What is a layer of "disconnection"? Is this a new rhetorical device?
Not a rhetorical device. I mean that FB inserts itself as a kind of centralized middleman that can disconnect people that the internet connects. To speak of it in computer architecture terms it could be called a single point of failure.
It makes everybody go through their App and watch their ads or else they get disconnected from everybody else. This isn't something that should be called connecting people.
> Facebook does actually help build the connectivity up in these countries so they do in fact pay for the infrastructure.
Facebook "pays for" the expansion of infrastructure with proceeds from parasitism on the existing infrastructure.
> There are millions of people that can talk to their relatives and have better access to government services and communicate with people they've never met, that would still be cut off if not for Facebook.
One option is to advocate for corporations to be allowed to act as sole providers of social services in exchange for a monopoly on network platform infrastructure.....
....but why not just advocate for taxing the corporations and using the money to provide those services to the public on an open platform instead?
If I could give an analogy: if facebook is the hammer, everything would look like a nail and we (in a civilized society) would know the difference whereas people new to such platform may not.
The UN may be the arbiter of global politics but what they might be exempting are people whom are part of the "opt out" crowd or, would rather not have to explicitly opt out of such (free) services.
But it literally results in genocides (Rohingya) because those people aren't technically literate and Facebook can't be bothered to hide moderators for exotic (non-english) languages.
The benefits are great, but it's not among the things that should be done by a for profit company, let alone one that lives on "engagement".
Tor is used for CSAM. PhpBB and PeerTube are used for djihadist propaganda.
There really isn't any trivial way to give people better communication technology without giving them better ability to coordinate to do awful things. If you don't want that, fine, but then the natural conclusion isn't "we shouldn't push Whatsapp on third-world countries", it's "we shouldn't develop the internet in third-world countries". Telegram and Signal can be used to incite genocides just was well.
The key point is moderation is a requirement if they are going to offer these services in new places. Hire locals that speak the language to remove problematic content or don’t do this at all.
I don’t think being technically literate has anything to do with it. We in the developed world are just as susceptible to misinformation.
> They'd probably provide the people in those countries with Facebook-only smartphones, or Facebook-only Internet connections, or something else horrible and dystopian like that.
