UPDATE: Receives More Backlash from Net Neutrality Activist

Facebook’s is struggling to get the “big hero” attention it’s asking for. 

Before launching in India, Indian Net Neutrality activist expelled and out-roared unsatisfied cries against for violating Net Neutrality. Now Latin America has followed suit. As reported  by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Panama, Argentina, Peru and Arguay have exhibited a chorus of disputes singing the same song; is not what they want. Providing a service that’s affordable is about the only good part to Facebook’s Limiting access to the internet controls third world content and steers users in the direction of Facebook services and these activist aren’t happy about it. It censors a groups involvement in searching for information and that’s just not fair.


Zuckerberg feels otherwise. According to DNA-india he’s openly made statements in defense of the service stating that it can most definitely coexist with Net Neutrality and that providing a limited service is much better than not having anything at all.


But is it? Do you think Zuckerberg is providing a beneficial peephole into the world wide web to the poor like one gives change to the homeless? Or is he taking advantage? Is he profiting on those who can’t afford services that most believe should be all access, free to the public information? Or perhaps he’s giving shelter to those trying to find a home.

Then there’s Google’s Loon Project (I know, they seem to have a project for everything don’t they?) which aims at launching balloons that float over an area and provide free internet services. Or which believes that internet access should be accessed by everyone for free and plans on launching a satellite that would provide just that. So what is Zuckerberg doing wrong? Perhaps would do much better if it’s mission statement wasn’t overly ambitious compared to it’s project which lacks much of– well anything. Perhaps if Facebook didn’t already have a history of collecting data and selling it for marketing. Or if Zuckerberg’s reputation wasn’t shaken by Hollywood’s characterization of him as a socially apathetic shark, looking for a Marlin and bypassing every trout on the way.

Is using poor areas of the world to capitalize on, or is it really providing services to those who have nothing… well nothing but a phone and the monthly subscription fee.

give Angel feedback: [email protected]