Free Basics Debate
Discussions center on Facebook's Internet.org/Free Basics initiative providing free limited internet access (e.g., Facebook, Wikipedia) to poor people without any internet, debating if it's better than nothing or creates a walled garden.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Because not everyone can afford internet access?
How is it better for those people to not have internet at all?
They are giving poor people another choice they can have access to a very limited Internet or they can have access to none. If they would just loose lot's of money by giving people this choice it wouldn't be a reliable business and soon it would end. What's so bad about giving people another choice? No one is forcing them.. and it's way better than doing nothing.
Looks like it's more about making the internet more accessible to people without it.
People who do not have access to the internet do not necessarily "want" any services.
Agreed. But perhaps it's worth it for people who are unable or struggle to afford internet?
Someone has to pay for this. Providing the full internet isn't an option.
for users that have internet access beyond facebook. Internet.org and many mobile phone providers provide free access to facebook but not the rest of the internet.
Why is it insulting that a company offered people limited internet access for free?
"Internet.org doesn’t block or throttle any other services or create fast lanes -- and it never will. We’re open for all mobile operators and we’re not stopping anyone from joining. We want as many internet providers to join so as many people as possible can be connected."Dear Mark, this open-to-ISP initiative is one way to look at what you're doing. Another one is closed-to-most-of-the-Internet. Let's turn it into an open-to-all-Internet initiative (web sites, mail, etc -