SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Facebook's gratis web service, "Free Basics", is anything but free. Though it targets developing markets, it focuses on establishing a foothold for 'western corporate content' while at the same time violating net neutrality principles. The Guardian reports on a recent study by Global Voices on the problem:
[...] the Global Voices report identifies a number of weaknesses in the service, including not adequately serving the linguistic needs of local populations; featuring a glut of third-party services from private companies in the US; harvesting huge amounts of metadata about users and violating the principles of net neutrality.
"Facebook is not introducing people to open internet where you can learn, create and build things," said Ellery Biddle, advocacy director of Global Voices. "It's building this little web that turns the user into a mostly passive consumer of mostly western corporate content. That's digital colonialism."
The actual report, Free Basics in Real Life — Six case studies on Facebook's internet "On Ramp" initiative from Africa, Asia and Latin America [PDF], and a summary of the study find a moderately long list of problems. In the list is the fact that "Free Basics" does not allow users to browse the Internet itself. Instead it restricts access to a small set of services selected by Facebook. It also presses subscribers to join Facebook, an act which is questionable even outside of "Free Basics" restrictions, and divides third-party services into two tiers of visibility and availability.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 31 2017, @04:11PM (6 children)
Did they claim to do otherwise? It's Free Basics, not Free Internet or Universal Basic Income.
Call it Free* Basics (*Anti-Privacy) if you want, but it is probably better than nothing for most users. Will Jojo Xadreque care about getting Zucked? Is he even getting privacy at all from the mobile operator he uses and the personal spyphone he carries? The answer is no.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Monday July 31 2017, @04:16PM
Did they claim to do otherwise?
Yes. Repeatedly. India saw through it, but they were about the only country to do something about it.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 31 2017, @04:27PM
No.
Will surrounding people care about drone zombies directed by US three letter stuff enticing and directing their hostility to the target of choice? Most likely.
Let's not even get started about any government.
+1 to the Indian government for calling the bluff.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday July 31 2017, @04:37PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @05:36PM (1 child)
Let's not make an already bad problem worse by making it acceptable to offer Internet plans that strongly resemble cable TV. Just because the ignorant masses don't care about being abused (rather, they don't understand the long-term harm this causes society) does not mean the abuse should be allowed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:42PM
But - some people LIKE being abused. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7IYYfrAE6A [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 01 2017, @11:01PM
You're putting the asterisk on "Free'?
How about the fact that one of the requirements for being available on "Free Basics" is integration with Facebook services? I think "Basics" needs an asterisk too, 'cause that doesn't sound particularly "basic" to me.
And don't even get me started on Facebook promoting this as "Internet.org" as though they invented the whole goddamn network...
So "Free basics" internet service is not Internet service, it is not basic, and it is not free...it's just another marketing gimmick for Facebook.