I think they are right. He calls it "internet.org", and gives talking points that hammer the words "access to the internet" over and over.

But, what's provided is access to a limited number of pre-approved sites.

That's not the internet. It's somewhat like the first iteration of AOL.

Does that have merit? Sure. Just don't keep calling it "the internet", because it's not.

> It's somewhat like the first iteration of AOL.

I remember having the same issues with Compuserve 20+ years ago, though of course that was more due to lack of understanding than lack of ability to do so.

Facebook knows that people in low-infrastructure countries conflate Facebook and the Internet: [qz.com...]

thinking Facebook is the Internet

Is it not?

I guess when you patronise people it alienates them.

The main problem is that they pick the services after consultation with "local governments"
This approach breeds corruption and censorship.

A lot of pretty words and high sounding ideals, but it's the boots on the ground, isps and providers, getting the short shrift. Don't blame them for pulling out. As they say: TANSTAAFL.

Power inspires nothing more than the desire to retain it, increase it and to eliminate anything that threatens it.

Wire fencing the users away from the rest of the internet will only help create and sustain the monopoly of a select few. Even the people who are falling for it should realize that this 'free' carrot will last only for a few months or a year or two at best.

If Mark Zuckerberg wants people to benefit, he should come up with a way to give people unconditional access to the internet, even if extremely limited in terms of data transfer. That would be philanthropy.

Of course Facebook is not the Internet, Google is. :)

That tells us something about how mobile app use affects people's perceptions! What happens when they follow shared links?

Most importantly, it shows what happens if you do not enforce net neutrality. As well as Indian ISPs offering Facebook packages, I have also found a Sri Lankan ISP offering a package that had twice as much usage for Youtube as for the rest of the internet, and a Cambodian one offering unlimited Facebook.

What is really good about Zuckerberg's response that says FB supports net neutrality!

Its not just the third world: its happening in the US too: [blogs.wsj.com...]

"Indian firms"?

I know plenty of people who think this way right here in the US where I am.

They'll say "I read about X on facebook" but can't tell you from who or where the information is derived.


FarmBoy

Of course Facebook is not the Internet, Google is. :)

You're more right about that than you might even know ... Working with clients over the years and nearly all of them think the Google Search box is the address bar for their browser.

Some even get semi-hostile when it's pointed out to them .. and here all this time they thought that they were quite the internet savvy guru.

I see that all the time. Its not always Google though. A while back (before Google was such a big brand- about 13 years ago) I tried to show someone how to use Google, and she said" I just type it in the browser", which, with internet explorer back then, got awful MSN search results.

I do not often here "read about X on Facebook", but I do hear "read about X on the internet".

@farmboy, the significance of the "Indian firms" is that they were ISPs supplying these limited packages. US ISPs have tried it(see my link above) but net neutrality regulations will probably kill it in the US (which is why they are trying to challenge them in court). In poorer countries, where fewer people have internet access to start with, FB has a chance to convince a large chunk of the population that Facebook is all they need.