It is almost certainly beneficial for each individual in the short term - having some sort of connection is better than having no connection. However, the value for that group of people over time is less obvious, as they will be incentivised to remain within the Facebook-controlled garden, rather than being free to choose how to direct their time and money.
It isn't much more than an attempt at monopoly, and I think it seems more egregious because of it being explicitly targeted at the poor. In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect.
In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect.
If we're worried about long-term effects, but concede there's a gain for everyone short-term, isn't the right thing to do to let them do it now, and if these negative effects materialize, then stop it?
Only Facebook has that level of control over the situation, and their only incentive is to try and make as much money as possible.
On a personal level, whilst I don't have strong feelings about the campaign against internet.org, I wouldn't mind if they succeeded. I do have to question why we think net neutrality is so important for us, but not for the poorest in the world. Did you watch the video I linked to? Before watching that I (obviously very naively) hadn't really considered the issue in net neutrality terms, preferring to see it as you appear to, in terms of something-better-than-nothing, but now I'm really not so sure.
There are still people with AOL email addresses. That migration to better things seems to take a generation while many people will continue to be willingly walled-in just out of habit.
Except smoking is harmful even if only done for a short period of time, while he alleged harm in these services only happens if they're around for a while.
Yes, looks like you don't get the point. The exact opposite is true, this is harmful from the time it get implanted, and the harm only grows with time.
Also, just like smoking, once the harm is big enough, there's no easy coming back.
Why is it harmful right away? Right away, you have people getting online who otherwise would not be online at all. The harm is only later, if they end up not getting fully online because they're satisfied. If that happens, and the benefits of internet.org no longer exceed the costs, then would be the time to ban it.
How is allowing internet.org now and stopping to allow it if and when it starts causing people to have less internet than they would otherwise (assuming that extra choice is bad here, which I do not concede) a bad thing?
It isn't much more than an attempt at monopoly, and I think it seems more egregious because of it being explicitly targeted at the poor. In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect.
For some additional perspective, here's a view from India: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA