Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such initiative.
I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.
Free Basics campaign is both confusing and misleading, They are posting ads around India "What net neutrality activists won’t tell you” etc. There are a number of good articles on the web. This one is one of my favourite: http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekee... I don't know anyone who supported it with its understanding. On the other hand a large number of my friends who signed this Facebook petition (I have talked to many of them) supported it without having any idea what they are supporting, In my opinion that's the worst part.
On 31 December 2015 at 06:56, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such initiative.
I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In Mexico Virgin Mobile is offering since December 11 this service and of course Wikipedia is announced as a part of the offer. With an intentional way, in my opinion, because although our free licenses that allow reuse of the Wikipedia contents, communication of this criticized service seems to be an alliance that take advantage of the moral quality of Wikipedia to attract confidence.
There are few voices[1] that point how Free Basics is an enemy of freedom of internet as Electronic Frontier Foundation [2], Mexican NGO Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales [3], Chilean NGO Derechos Digitales [4] among others.
Will be nice if we can start the discussion as community and movement and take action. I don't know if WMF have something in plans about Free Basics.
Regards,
[1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-r... [2] https://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2015/09/facebooks-free-basics-more-open-bet... [3] https://r3d.mx/2015/12/15/facebook-da-internet-gratis-demasiado-bueno-para-s... [4] https://www.derechosdigitales.org/9585/free-basics-expands-in-latin-america-...
2015-12-30 19:49 GMT-06:00 Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com:
Free Basics campaign is both confusing and misleading, They are posting ads around India "What net neutrality activists won’t tell you” etc. There are a number of good articles on the web. This one is one of my favourite:
http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekee... I don't know anyone who supported it with its understanding. On the other hand a large number of my friends who signed this Facebook petition (I have talked to many of them) supported it without having any idea what they are supporting, In my opinion that's the worst part.
On 31 December 2015 at 06:56, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such initiative.
I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 2015-12-31, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such initiative.
I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.
You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia Zero initiative.
Saper
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info wrote:
You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia Zero initiative.
From my perspective, there is significant difference between Wikipedia
Zero (along with similar, free of charge services) and Free Basics. The first group positively discriminates some websites, the second group negatively discriminates a part of population.
I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their infrastructure. The classic examples are Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola: they make a deal with a fast food restaurant to give you their products for reduced price. And when we come to bits and bytes, "reduced price" could be zero.
On top of that, we have a number of Internet services of strategic importance. Wikimedia projects are one of such services. Yes, a number of Google services and Facebook are such services, as well, along with a number of services covering similar needs (Yandex and VKontakte in Russia, for example). It's good to have such services for free (before or after you spend your data limit).
However, when it comes to limiting access to particular services, it creates an underclass, capable to participate just in one segment of Internet. That's quite serious.
I don't think think Zuckerberg's initiative has such idea behind. It's Coca Cola-like marketing campaign. When you become that big, your marketing approach becomes big, as well. Familiarizing people with their products is clever strategy. We know that from three decades of Microsoft's tolerance of piracy in countries without enough of people capable to buy their software.
Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become richer and they won't need this kind of service.
Wikimedia projects will be included inside of such plans even without WMF's approval. And even if we theoretically could block access, we shouldn't do that, of course.
There is one more important issue here: It's Facebook's initiative, but it's also a cartel-like approach to the market. Facebook is not the only company behind the initiative and the initiative could become quite powerful and could grow behind giving free access to limited internet just to the poorest inhabitants of the Earth. It could slip into a worldwide option, served as default in many settings.
So, there are at least three important reasons why Wikimedia organizations shouldn't participate in such initiative:
* Most importantly, while I don't think Free Basics will create a permanent underclass, nobody could guarantee such thing. My position is based on external factors, not on the design created by the companies participating in Free Basics. They could work hard on preserving a kind of status quo by gradually increasing access to various services, while keeping zero price. In a nightmarish scenario, we could get two Internets: one censored and one not censored. And Wikimedia shouldn't support such possible future.
* It's Facebook's business, not ours. I don't think Wikimedia organizations should be outside of any business deal with for-profit companies, but I don't think our voice in such initiative could be relevant.
* Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us and the rest of our global super-movement.
Hi,
Indian netizens, specially the open source activists, are severely criticizing Internet.org and Free basics right from the beginning on the violation of net neutrality issue. In response to that, TRAI has asked Reliance Communication to hold Facebook Free Basics service.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-servic...
http://qz.com/580884/india-has-hit-the-brakes-on-facebooks-free-internet-ser...
Regards, Bodhisattwa
On 1 January 2016 at 11:20, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info wrote:
You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia
Zero initiative.
From my perspective, there is significant difference between Wikipedia Zero (along with similar, free of charge services) and Free Basics. The first group positively discriminates some websites, the second group negatively discriminates a part of population.
I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their infrastructure. The classic examples are Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola: they make a deal with a fast food restaurant to give you their products for reduced price. And when we come to bits and bytes, "reduced price" could be zero.
On top of that, we have a number of Internet services of strategic importance. Wikimedia projects are one of such services. Yes, a number of Google services and Facebook are such services, as well, along with a number of services covering similar needs (Yandex and VKontakte in Russia, for example). It's good to have such services for free (before or after you spend your data limit).
However, when it comes to limiting access to particular services, it creates an underclass, capable to participate just in one segment of Internet. That's quite serious.
I don't think think Zuckerberg's initiative has such idea behind. It's Coca Cola-like marketing campaign. When you become that big, your marketing approach becomes big, as well. Familiarizing people with their products is clever strategy. We know that from three decades of Microsoft's tolerance of piracy in countries without enough of people capable to buy their software.
Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become richer and they won't need this kind of service.
Wikimedia projects will be included inside of such plans even without WMF's approval. And even if we theoretically could block access, we shouldn't do that, of course.
There is one more important issue here: It's Facebook's initiative, but it's also a cartel-like approach to the market. Facebook is not the only company behind the initiative and the initiative could become quite powerful and could grow behind giving free access to limited internet just to the poorest inhabitants of the Earth. It could slip into a worldwide option, served as default in many settings.
So, there are at least three important reasons why Wikimedia organizations shouldn't participate in such initiative:
- Most importantly, while I don't think Free Basics will create a
permanent underclass, nobody could guarantee such thing. My position is based on external factors, not on the design created by the companies participating in Free Basics. They could work hard on preserving a kind of status quo by gradually increasing access to various services, while keeping zero price. In a nightmarish scenario, we could get two Internets: one censored and one not censored. And Wikimedia shouldn't support such possible future.
- It's Facebook's business, not ours. I don't think Wikimedia
organizations should be outside of any business deal with for-profit companies, but I don't think our voice in such initiative could be relevant.
- Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us and the rest of our global super-movement.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal < bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com> wrote:
Indian netizens, specially the open source activists, are severely criticizing Internet.org and Free basics right from the beginning on the violation of net neutrality issue. In response to that, TRAI has asked Reliance Communication to hold Facebook Free Basics service.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-servic...
http://qz.com/580884/india-has-hit-the-brakes-on-facebooks-free-internet-ser...
As Bodhisattwa points out, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) recently put Inernet.org -- now re-branded "Free Basics" -- on hold in India.[1] Facebook's offering free content is characterised by net neutrality activists as an attempt to build a monopoly,[2] or establish a gatekeeper role.[3]
Tim Berners-Lee is on record as asking people to "Just say no" to such efforts.[4]
Jimmy Wales on the other hand is on record[5] as saying that he fully supports Internet.org:
---o0o---
*What does Jimmy Wales think about Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org project, especially in light of Wikipedia Zero? Is there a chance for it to become a collaborative project between Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation?*
I like what they are doing. I have spoken to both Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg about it, and the internet.org team is in contact with our Wikipedia Zero team.
Because Wikipedia/Wikimedia is somewhat "the Switzerland of the Internet" (i.e. with a strong tendency to be very vendor neutral) we are always going to be supportive of efforts like this, which are broad industry coalitions to do something useful particularly relating to broad access to knowledge, our core value. But we won't generally be tied up in any one thing per se. But we'll work with them where it makes sense, of course.
In my personal capacity, I am a big fan of what they are trying to do and support it fully.
---o0o---
What do the other WMF board members think about Internet.org/Free Basics, and about the risks involved in allowing the establishment of online gatekeepers or monopolies?
And if you have concerns in this area, how does it inform your thinking about Wikipedia Zero and other Wikimedia projects? Do you see any risk that Wikimedia projects themselves could end up acting as an online gatekeeper or monopoly, and if so, what are you doing to mitigate that risk?[6][7]
[1] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-servic... [2] http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/free-basics-vs-free-internet-your-... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/zuckerberg-s-india-backlas... [4] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/zuckerberg-s-india-backlas... [5] https://www.quora.com/What-does-Jimmy-Wales-think-about-Mark-Zuckerbergs-Int... https://archive.is/1Lxlc [6] https://www.accessnow.org/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-... [7] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divi...
Hi Milos, Happy new year to you!
I thought your mail to the list was very thoughtful. I've replied inline below.
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their infrastructure.
Hmm, this example has little to do with net neutrality as I understand it though.
Net neutrality means that you pay your ISP to allow you to send and receive packets to/from anyone without discrimination to source or destination. (In other words you're paying for actual internet access without let or hindrance).
Previously this is how the market worked.
Without going into details here, many sources tell us that the market is now threatening to shift towards a winner-takes-all walled garden model. (if not already there)
It's going to be a challenge to keep open source and open content operating and relevant in such an increasingly hostile environment this coming decade.
Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become richer and they won't need this kind of service.
We can ask them whether they want to continue having such a service at any time. Or we can set some participation threshold above which we would accept a petition to stop. (It is always wise to have pre-prepared go/no-go safety checks at particular points in time)
- Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us and the rest of our global super-movement.
*Nod* We have to beware of fouling our own nest. Even though Wikipedia zero appears to help our own cause now, we need to be careful we don't hurt the people we depend on in turn.
People such as the open source community and internet standards organisations might prove quite sensitive to changing Internet rules. We should put our ears to the ground and listen carefully to what representatives of these groups may be saying to us.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Hi,
I just got the link of the official statement of WMF regarding internet.org.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero/Development#Regarding_In...
Regards, Bodhisattwa On 2 Jan 2016 05:01, "Kim Bruning" kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Hi Milos, Happy new year to you!
I thought your mail to the list was very thoughtful. I've replied inline below.
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their infrastructure.
Hmm, this example has little to do with net neutrality as I understand it though.
Net neutrality means that you pay your ISP to allow you to send and receive packets to/from anyone without discrimination to source or destination. (In other words you're paying for actual internet access without let or hindrance).
Previously this is how the market worked.
Without going into details here, many sources tell us that the market is now threatening to shift towards a winner-takes-all walled garden model. (if not already there)
It's going to be a challenge to keep open source and open content operating and relevant in such an increasingly hostile environment this coming decade.
Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become richer and they won't need this kind of service.
We can ask them whether they want to continue having such a service at any time. Or we can set some participation threshold above which we would accept a petition to stop. (It is always wise to have pre-prepared go/no-go safety checks at particular points in time)
- Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us and the rest of our global super-movement.
*Nod* We have to beware of fouling our own nest. Even though Wikipedia zero appears to help our own cause now, we need to be careful we don't hurt the people we depend on in turn.
People such as the open source community and internet standards organisations might prove quite sensitive to changing Internet rules. We should put our ears to the ground and listen carefully to what representatives of these groups may be saying to us.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks! I see it's from November. Somebody could point earlier to this and spare us u couple of emails of this month quota :P On Jan 2, 2016 09:20, "Bodhisattwa Mandal" bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I just got the link of the official statement of WMF regarding internet.org.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero/Development#Regarding_In...
Regards, Bodhisattwa On 2 Jan 2016 05:01, "Kim Bruning" kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Hi Milos, Happy new year to you!
I thought your mail to the list was very thoughtful. I've replied inline below.
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their infrastructure.
Hmm, this example has little to do with net neutrality as I understand it though.
Net neutrality means that you pay your ISP to allow you to send and receive packets to/from anyone without discrimination to source or destination. (In other words you're paying for actual internet access without let or hindrance).
Previously this is how the market worked.
Without going into details here, many sources tell us that the market is now threatening to shift towards a winner-takes-all walled garden model. (if not already there)
It's going to be a challenge to keep open source and open content operating and relevant in such an increasingly hostile environment this coming decade.
Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become richer and they won't need this kind of service.
We can ask them whether they want to continue having such a service at any time. Or we can set some participation threshold above which we would accept a petition to stop. (It is always wise to have pre-prepared go/no-go safety checks at particular points in time)
- Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us and the rest of our global super-movement.
*Nod* We have to beware of fouling our own nest. Even though Wikipedia zero appears to help our own cause now, we need to be careful we don't hurt the people we depend on in turn.
People such as the open source community and internet standards organisations might prove quite sensitive to changing Internet rules. We should put our ears to the ground and listen carefully to what representatives of these groups may be saying to us.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org