The Benevolent Mark Zuckerberg

https://www.techinasia.com/talk/facebooks-internetorg-evil/

Doling out scraps for the poor.

A major factor in why I deleted my Facebook account last year.

It still baffles me, that he was allowed to do this. Well, not really. It makes censoring so much easier in the ‘infected’ countries. I think - no, I’m actually sure - that given an educated choice I would prefer no internet to this crippled version. Too bad, they aren’t allowed to educate themselves on the matter.

I have no doubt that a cleaver mind with a IP will find a way to work around any limitation put before them.

The fact that the URL title puts Facebook and evil in the same sentence is a strong sign that the article is heavily biased and opinionated.

So you think private companies shouldn’t be allowed to develop an infrastructure for the internet in developing countries then, because I fail to see how their (likely corrupt) governments would be able to do a better job? I would also like to know your opinion of billionaires giving parts of their fortune to help the less fortunate (even if it involves giving away much of their wealth and even choosing not to live in a giant mansion like seen with Warren Buffet).

The problem is with economics being truncated in human socioeconomic systems and even in individual endeavors. The scientific usage of economics promotes equilibrium. Few care about this because it’s not commonly valued. It isn’t just a social construct either. Immediate responsibilities appeal more viscerally to us as humans and our cognitive and intellectual limitations default to hierarchies. We can work toward homeostasis but in a pinch we won’t and we are often in a pinch.

even “bad” marketing is marketing :wink:

Of course it’s biased. How could it not be when he sees his country manipulated and abused for the sake of a greener bottom line for a corporation that’s not even situated in the country?

How would you like if your access to the internet was crippled in this fashion, simply because you were poor? Not being able to find whatever you want, whenever you need it?

This has nothing to do with charity, it’s a strategic marketing campaign, meant to make money. What Bill Gates did was charity.

As poor as those people are, they have plenty of concerns that take a higher priority than the lack of being able to send tweets and watch cat videos on Youtube.

In fact; I don’t buy all that much into the “Internet connection is a basic human right” mantra that has been championed by people such as Zuckerberg, since when did stuff like sharing internet memes become a basic right? Focus on the absolute needs before anything else.

with the internet you can look at stuff like

open source ecology

off grid living

how to build a windmill using alternators

how to purify water etc.

the internet is a means of turning garbage into treasures,

Which doesn’t matter if the village you’re trying to help does not yet know how to read, write, and work with technology (and the third thing is very hard to do if the first two skills have not been taught).

Then they would need access to the technology and materials needed to build those devices (what use is information you don’t have the means to follow).

I’m just saying that Internet access would not be the first priority because there’s likely a few other needs they lack that are far more basic.

yes, all have a right to knowledge… it’s a choice

You’ve never lacked anything in your life, have you?

The internet is not about tweets and candy crush invitations. It’s about easily accessible knowledge. Yes, they will need to learn to read and write, but funnily enough, that is also an option with the internet.

People living on the edge of the world with little to nothing to help them, more than you or I deserve to have internet to make it easier for them to make ends meet. As BluePrintRandom points out, it’s a constantly developing source of free knowledge about technology - low or high - that can turn your life around when you have few resources.

Knowledge should be free and available to all.

And you didn’t answer my questions… How would you like for this to have applied to you?

If I was destitute and begging for food, I wouldn’t be seeing having a connection to the internet being the first thing on my mind (especially if I was also illiterate).


The internet is not about tweets and candy crush invitations. It’s about easily accessible knowledge. Yes, they will need to learn to read and write, but funnily enough, that is also an option with the internet.

However, they would need someone to take them to the sites where they could learn it, but something this basic is not really something that requires internet access. Also as I said, knowing to read and write isn’t enough, following that they would need to have the technological literacy to operate a computer and manage a connection (because no connection is perfect and sooner or later you’ll need to know what to do if the internet goes down).

A lot of people on the street who are not in developing countries have phones with internet. Just like what Zuckerberg wants people in developing countries to have, so they can create revenue for him. Are you telling me, they didn’t choose to have internet, but it was somehow tricked upon them? Internet is a lot cheaper than a house, and may well be the means for you to learn something to better your chance of someday getting a house. Provided it’s actually the internet, and not a crippled version, designed to only show you what money makers want you to see.

But I guess, it does answer my question. You’ve never lacked for anything in your life. I guess it’s easy to know what’s best for others, then.

And I do believe, you underestimate the will and determination of people who want to change their lives for the better. Given the tools, they will learn to use them. They have a whole lot more motivation to do so, than first world kids do. Of course, again, it is dependent on the tools you hand them. If you give them a tool with nothing but empty facebook games and ads, then they won’t make it very far, now will they?

Again, how would you like to be in their situation, having only a crippled internet at your disposal?

I would think a lot of poor people would be thankful that they can actually have a level of access to the internet to begin with. Do they have an absolute need for everything that the internet has to offer (because along with the knowledge, there’s a ton of garbage strewn about the web as well). Also, would it also be considered a basic right for them to be able to run high-intensity webGL and HTML 5 applications and stream HD movies, because that is part of the web as well and I guess not having those things ‘cripples’ the connection?

Also, yes, there’s a lot of people with cellphones now, but there are still millions more that don’t even have that. In fact there’s even some places out in the tropics where people stick to tribal customs and are absolutely hostile to anything that deals with the modern world (how can you get the internet to those type of people that threaten to kill anyone from the outside trying to get in).

Also, I never said I know exactly what was best for others, but we need to look at priorities and ask if the internet is supposed to be the very first priority (before literacy, before food security, before reliable water access, before housing that’s not made of mud, and before a society that is stable).

The problem is, it’s not the internet. It’s the Facebook and partners worldview loaded on closed servers.

I doubt that it will happen though. Tit for tat is going to break it.

I never said anything about forcing the internet on anybody. A right to knowledge is not a mandatory proclamation to force internet on people.

And saying that people should be thankful for scraps is about as arrogant as anything I’ve heard yet. Unless I misunderstood you, of course.

A lot knowledge sites have minimum to no graphics, particularly suited for low end machines and connections. All the trash you talk about is the flashy stuff that will take high end machines and connections to access. Then of course there sites such as Khan’s Academy and TED talks, that are based mostly if not solely on video content, and yes, they would need high end solutions.

However, you don’t need high end machines or connections to have a useful experience with the internet.

I think that defining scraps as not having access to the full internet is really pushing it.

The historic definition of giving the poor the scraps would be like giving them what’s left of a consumable item, the internet can’t be consumed because it’s always there and always growing even. At the least, this would be an incredibly modernist and recent definition of the word.

Nowhere did I say that people should be thankful if people drop a loaf of stale bread for a poor family or anything of that sort, but strictly speaking in terms of access to the internet (not in terms of basic needs needed to at least get a solid foundation built for a society so they can later focus on prosperity aspects such as internet access).

Nit-picking again. Your semantic skills are quite developed.

And having access to the internet will propel their chances for prosperity. Having access to facebook will propel their… well… nothing, really. But it will definitely add to Zuckerbergs wallet.

And on that note, you keep arguing that they should learn the technology, when they clearly already know it, or they wouldn’t be on the facebook internet.

Oh kids… poor in material goods does not make a discrimination or prejudice justified, neither does poor in mind (as materialists usually are).
Even on facebook one can develop certain skills. Do not censor or correct a beings right to evolve. Capitalistic mind thinks it has a right to decide?

Damn, sometimes such debates are pure nonsense that can take forever not to clear.

Outlying communities, generally deemed to be poor or backward have a greater connection and respect for the earth than the internet will ever give them.
Personally i would like to think such communities would be able to make their own decisions about their future, i would trust an Amazonian tribe with custody of our planet over modern perceived progress without hesitation. I suspect they wouldn’t pay much attention to Facebook when global warming is causing their crops to fail.