>People honestly believe that having no internet is better than breaking the net neutrality morale code.
Net neutrality is internet communism in my opinion.
> but you really don't have a right to complain about what a free service offers.
They shouldn't call it "The Internet" when it isn't then. Poor people who buy this service in India and haven't spent a lot of time online before come away with the impression that the few sites Mark Zuckerberg lets them go to comprise the entire network.
You're retarded. You sign up for the service on Facebook's domain: "Internet.org". But it isn't actually the internet you're signing up for.
>The first signs of Facebook's strategy became apparent on December 10 as unwitting users across India started seeing an alert pop up in their notifications: "Act Now to Save Free Basics in India."
>The Free Basics DDoS had started.
>Those who clicked the alert were taken to a specially designed page where Facebook, using emotion-laden, fear-inducing messaging like "Without your support, it could be banned in a matter of weeks;" "Unless you take action now, India could lose access to free basic internet services" and "A small, vocal group of critics are lobbying to have Free Basics banned on the basis of net neutrality," asked them to register their support for Free Basics and send Trai a pre-drafted email.
>Free Basics is Facebook's global zero rating platform, earlier called Internet.Org, through which it makes available its own services plus a small number of third party sites for "free" by signing deals with individual ISPs and telcos. In India Free Basics was only available on Reliance Communications mobile network, though that has subsequently been ordered to be shut down by Trai.
you just finding a relation with something, and then saying "this is bd, therefore this other thing is bad". Explain to me, in what way is net, a concept that puts forward the idea of unregulated internet for the people, "internet communism"?
Why not say "Net neutrality is internet free-market in my opinion."
>don't have a right to complain about what a free service offers
Don't be so simple.
Having control over so much traffic, profiles and likes like Facebook does lets you know your market. But here they'll have *unchallenged* control over a complete market. Not a global market, not a "rich" market, but you can drive the market in ways you couldn't do before with the global market. Not only access to information and influence over decision making like they have world-wide. Their new position will mean they can experiment in ways they couldn't before, they can poke the market and see how it reacts without the noise of other influences. If you can get a message across to a million people in the world, you can make money form it, but I that million people live in the same city, you can create uniformity of thought, monopoly, drive it's economy, because people's opinions are influenced by their friends and neighbours, and there is sinergy in affecting a community.
The day that people insist on having a larger access, they'll just give it to them, because they have the money, and it's much more lucrative than losing their complete control over a market that they can bend like that. Their position will go unchallenged
The guy is getting into untapped territory. It's like Rockefeller getting hold of the oil industry. I cannot tell you what will happen, but history will remember this event like we do today of the great takeovers of the American industrialist age: a bold move into a new market paradigm, and new forms of control that not even Facebook execs know yet, because they didn't get a market to test yet.
No, that was Arpanet. I'm talking about the WWW, which has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
I can remember when Mosaic was invented and all there was to do on the web was gopher and webcams. Then millions of users made content, free from multinational corporations. And for a time it was good.
Then the "e-commerce" came and corrupted and destroyed all that.
Mostly through banner ads and the invention of clickbait. There is however something to be said for the way everybody gave up the right to call whatever carrier they chose to with a telephone modem in favor of a broadband cable/fiber system where the modems are proprietary or only connect through one carrier networks.
What's going on in India right now is the same thing that happened in America when AOL created eternal september.
None of that changes the fact that you're free to run your own website, utterly devoid of ads, as long as you're willing to pay costs out of pocket or through donations.
Do you really believe no one should be allowed to use the internet for commercial enterprise?
>Do you really believe no one should be allowed to use the internet for commercial enterprise?
I don't think that's the point of the internet, and further, if it must be a non-neutral internet, I think commercial internet traffic should be forcibly downthrottled at the gateway level if anything, not given priority.
Net Neutrality is a thing because the competition between American ISPs has been such garbage. Since big businesses won't be broken up any time soon, this is just a step towards alleviating the pain.
>Net neutrality is internet communism in my opinion.
The internet is not something that can be defined by a philosophy like communism.
Unless Marxism of course, I'm in full favor of a class war between us and /pol/