Zuckerberg defends free basics in Times of India op-ed(blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Zuckerberg defends free basics in Times of India op-ed
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/#_ga=1.141352114.1896674499.1451315281
13 comments
I'm against Free Basics and am boycotting Facebook, but playing devils advocate...
> They're called "public" libraries; not every library is free. I remember once trying to enter Stanford's library (Green?), and they refused to let me in without a Stanford ID.
Zuckerberg is referring to public libraries, not paid ones. The public library offers a set of books that, while not comprehensive, provide at least some free knowledge. Free Basics is analogous in that it offers some free services. Could Zuckerberg do more? Yes. Could public libraries have more books? Yes.
> In America?!? Hell no. You have emergency room care, and it is NOT free. Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in America.
This isn't what he's saying. Some places around the world do offer free basic healthcare. And he's talking conceptually, not concretely. If Zuckerberg ran a healthcare startup and offered free basic healthcare to a region, would they complain that it doesn't offer all possible services? Would they rather have no healthcare than some?
> They're called "public" libraries; not every library is free. I remember once trying to enter Stanford's library (Green?), and they refused to let me in without a Stanford ID.
Zuckerberg is referring to public libraries, not paid ones. The public library offers a set of books that, while not comprehensive, provide at least some free knowledge. Free Basics is analogous in that it offers some free services. Could Zuckerberg do more? Yes. Could public libraries have more books? Yes.
> In America?!? Hell no. You have emergency room care, and it is NOT free. Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in America.
This isn't what he's saying. Some places around the world do offer free basic healthcare. And he's talking conceptually, not concretely. If Zuckerberg ran a healthcare startup and offered free basic healthcare to a region, would they complain that it doesn't offer all possible services? Would they rather have no healthcare than some?
>Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in America.
What's the latest thinking on this?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w74.full
What's the latest thinking on this?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w74.full
The saying is dont look a gift horse in the mouth, but the way Zuckerberg is consistently lobbying and pushing for the implementation of programs under an altruistic banner that also happen to largely benefit himself is somewhat counter productive.
Their is a reason most super wealthy people who have made a big impact through philanthropy have tended to make it their focus after they have explicitly detached themselves from their money making enterprise, and/or focused on areas that do not overlap with their money making enterprises...
Their is a reason most super wealthy people who have made a big impact through philanthropy have tended to make it their focus after they have explicitly detached themselves from their money making enterprise, and/or focused on areas that do not overlap with their money making enterprises...
Zuck is making a great ass of himself. The conflict of interest is glaring, and that's why no one will take him seriously even if he's right.
He should simply let the professional lobbyists, spin doctors and astroturfers fight for the idea and realize that nothing he says can help the cause.
He should simply let the professional lobbyists, spin doctors and astroturfers fight for the idea and realize that nothing he says can help the cause.
This whole Facebook Free Basics issue is painful to hear about. A corporation wants to provide free internet to the poorest of the poor people in the world, but the richer of the poorest people don't want that to happen, because the corporation has a business plan.
A company should and MUST make huge profits off helping poor, this is the only sustainable way by which people will be able to come out of poverty.
A company should and MUST make huge profits off helping poor, this is the only sustainable way by which people will be able to come out of poverty.
> A company should and MUST make huge profits off helping poor, this is the only sustainable way by which people will be able to come out of poverty.
And this is why in large parts of the world mothers have come to believe that formula is better than breast milk.
And this is why Monsanto ruins the lives of farmers, driving many to suicide.
And this is why in large parts of the world mothers have come to believe that formula is better than breast milk.
And this is why Monsanto ruins the lives of farmers, driving many to suicide.
> And this is why Monsanto ruins the lives of farmers, driving many to suicide.
Monsanto does not force farmers to not use their product in the way they want. IP enforcement (which a lot of westerners seem to think it is about) is nearly absent in this countries. Farmers kill themselves because of debt from the bank (which is and will be enforcable).
Look at India, farmer suicides are a huge problem in certain states, and the moment you cross over the state boundary the problem goes away. These states have few things in common:
* A land ceiling limit, most states in India have a limit of maximum agricultural land to be limited to 14-20 something acres. This means that when you're farm is failing, you have very limited buyers for it. Only a buyer who doesn't already own enough land which touches the limit can buy the land.
* Monsanto seed is used by a LOT more farmers than those who commit suicide. This is called survivorship bias. You only see the seeds used by farmers who committed suicide, you don't see the farmers who succeeded because of it. Thankfully some research has shown otherwise. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/14...
* Farmers suicide rate in India per 100k: 1.55 Non farmer suicide rate in India per 100k: 10.3
* 5 of the 29 states account for 79% of farmer suicides: Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Kerala. The common theme is these states have higher industrialization than the rest of the states(except for MP, that state is backward as fuck). Keep in mind, a factory owner can buy a LOT more land than agricultural land limit would allow.
* Most of the stories westerners are being fed about Farmer suicide are from mid-2000s, when suicide peaked. When you look at the long term trend, it seems that more farmers used Monsanto's seed, farmer suicide comes down to historic lows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Fa...
> And this is why in large parts of the world mothers have come to believe that formula is better than breast milk.
Regarding this, I admit I don't know much, but I learned this lesson long time ago. Be very ware of stories generated by people with an agenda. These facts and figures are generated by the left wing of India. It's not difficult to show that Sweden's rape epidemic is caused by it's recent influx of immigrants, it might be the case, but I can promise you, this statistic will be thrown out almost immidiately.
Monsanto does not force farmers to not use their product in the way they want. IP enforcement (which a lot of westerners seem to think it is about) is nearly absent in this countries. Farmers kill themselves because of debt from the bank (which is and will be enforcable).
Look at India, farmer suicides are a huge problem in certain states, and the moment you cross over the state boundary the problem goes away. These states have few things in common:
* A land ceiling limit, most states in India have a limit of maximum agricultural land to be limited to 14-20 something acres. This means that when you're farm is failing, you have very limited buyers for it. Only a buyer who doesn't already own enough land which touches the limit can buy the land.
* Monsanto seed is used by a LOT more farmers than those who commit suicide. This is called survivorship bias. You only see the seeds used by farmers who committed suicide, you don't see the farmers who succeeded because of it. Thankfully some research has shown otherwise. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/14...
* Farmers suicide rate in India per 100k: 1.55 Non farmer suicide rate in India per 100k: 10.3
* 5 of the 29 states account for 79% of farmer suicides: Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Kerala. The common theme is these states have higher industrialization than the rest of the states(except for MP, that state is backward as fuck). Keep in mind, a factory owner can buy a LOT more land than agricultural land limit would allow.
* Most of the stories westerners are being fed about Farmer suicide are from mid-2000s, when suicide peaked. When you look at the long term trend, it seems that more farmers used Monsanto's seed, farmer suicide comes down to historic lows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Fa...
> And this is why in large parts of the world mothers have come to believe that formula is better than breast milk.
Regarding this, I admit I don't know much, but I learned this lesson long time ago. Be very ware of stories generated by people with an agenda. These facts and figures are generated by the left wing of India. It's not difficult to show that Sweden's rape epidemic is caused by it's recent influx of immigrants, it might be the case, but I can promise you, this statistic will be thrown out almost immidiately.
> It's not difficult to show that Sweden's rape epidemic is caused by it's recent influx of immigrants
Really? By including this one statement you made me think you are part of the nationalistic right.
Sweden's "rape epidemic" is mostly because other countries under-report rape. If a woman comes to the police and say that her husband had raped her almost every day for a year, then that's 300+ rape reports. Other countries might report that as a single rape report, or declare outright that it's impossible for a husband to rape his wife.
See for examples http://www.geocurrents.info/geography-of-crime-and-punishmen... and http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2013/12/01/sweden-gender-par... .
There are certainly people who argue that this isn't true, but that analysis is not simple, while you argue that it's "not difficult".
Really? By including this one statement you made me think you are part of the nationalistic right.
Sweden's "rape epidemic" is mostly because other countries under-report rape. If a woman comes to the police and say that her husband had raped her almost every day for a year, then that's 300+ rape reports. Other countries might report that as a single rape report, or declare outright that it's impossible for a husband to rape his wife.
See for examples http://www.geocurrents.info/geography-of-crime-and-punishmen... and http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2013/12/01/sweden-gender-par... .
There are certainly people who argue that this isn't true, but that analysis is not simple, while you argue that it's "not difficult".
>Sweden's "rape epidemic" is mostly because other countries under-report rape. If a woman comes to the police and say that her husband had raped her almost every day for a year, then that's 300+ rape reports. Other countries might report that as a single rape report, or declare outright that it's impossible for a husband to rape his wife.
Norway has near identical rape laws including with regards to how rapes are accounted for. Yet the difference between the two countries per capita is staggering and I doubt can be explained by "Swedens are more likely to file rape charges". Denmark, too, has similar laws and far less rape crime.
I find it telling that anyone who points to any other statistic than "rape is underreported" is wrong/a bigot/nationalistic right/mysognistic/whatever is deemed a derogatory name.
Maybe instead of "the rest of the world underreports rape"... Sweden just has a large amount of rape? That might be worth looking into. Such as "Why does Sweden have such a high rape statistic compared to countries with similar laws?"
Same with "college campuses". It's not that "there isn't a rape problem on college campuses" it's just that "rape is underreported".
Of course, going against this narrative that ignores all data and makes a huge assumption makes me a woman-hating, rape-culture supporting sexist.
Norway has near identical rape laws including with regards to how rapes are accounted for. Yet the difference between the two countries per capita is staggering and I doubt can be explained by "Swedens are more likely to file rape charges". Denmark, too, has similar laws and far less rape crime.
I find it telling that anyone who points to any other statistic than "rape is underreported" is wrong/a bigot/nationalistic right/mysognistic/whatever is deemed a derogatory name.
Maybe instead of "the rest of the world underreports rape"... Sweden just has a large amount of rape? That might be worth looking into. Such as "Why does Sweden have such a high rape statistic compared to countries with similar laws?"
Same with "college campuses". It's not that "there isn't a rape problem on college campuses" it's just that "rape is underreported".
Of course, going against this narrative that ignores all data and makes a huge assumption makes me a woman-hating, rape-culture supporting sexist.
> Really? By including this one statement you made me think you are part of the nationalistic right.
You clearly misread my post under your own bias.
You clearly misread my post under your own bias.
I certainly have biases, as do you. How is your comment concerning Sweden's rape statistics relevant to the rest of your point?
Quoting myself: > It's not difficult to show that Sweden's rape epidemic is caused by it's recent influx of immigrants, it might be the case, but I can promise you, this statistic will be thrown out almost immidiately.<
> We have collections of free basic books. They’re called libraries. They don’t contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.
They're called "public" libraries; not every library is free. I remember once trying to enter Stanford's library (Green?), and they refused to let me in without a Stanford ID.
> We have free basic healthcare.
In America?!? Hell no. You have emergency room care, and it is NOT free. Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in America.
> And in the 21st century, everyone also deserves access to the tools and information that can help them to achieve all those other public services, and all their fundamental social and economic rights.
I couldn't even parse this sentence. What does "achieve" mean here?
The problem with people like Zuckerberg is that they think the poor would be fine with a walled garden Internet.
Imagine if Coke came along and said: we'll provide all poor people who don't have access to clean water with free Coke. This "free basics" seems the same.
You want to spread Internet to everyone in India? Let the Government install free WiFi spots; maybe in every railway station? Give people access to free WiFi at, say, 256kbps. The Government of India should be stepping in to make the Internet free and accessible, not some billionaire sitting in Palo Alto, sipping his latte.