News Zuckerberg calls on UN to Connect The World

Meh, he just wants them all on facebook so he can sell more user details to advertising firms.

Eff right off, Suckerberg.

 

He's creating Skynet!

 

Not sure I like the idea of giving a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless, that sounds like a rather radical ideology to me, this Zuckerberg fella sounds a bit like one of those extremists.

 

Sorry, but Zuckerberg is full of total and utter bull.

The UN should focus on providing internet access to the world - as a priority?

Yeah, who needs to focus on the billion + people who don't have enough food each day, who don't have access to clean drinking water, or sanitation, or shelter or education? Let's not focus on the hundreds of millions more who live in failed or war-torn states, or under totalitarian dictatorships with absolutely no physical or legal protection from their corrupt states or warring factions.

Let's not focus on that, what we really need to concentrate our minds on is that some people can't log-on in certain parts of sub-Saharan Africa and East-Asia - that's what the world should prioritise, not clean drinking water, food, shelter or physical protection, but internet connections.

Just one tiny problem: How are uneducated and therefore illiterate people going to read what's on the internet, or write on it to take part? Even if they could magically learn to read and write on their own, how are people who can't afford to eat properly going to buy PC equipment to do it?

I think Spreadie was nearer the mark: More users = more customers = more money and power for him.

Far from wanting to "give a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless" I think he's a dangerous, selfish, swivel-eyed lunatic attempting to divert energy and resources away from where they're most needed to where they would most suit him to be spent.

Evil, in other words.

 

And yes, I realise that was a rant - it's just that reading that wound me up!

 

Zuckerberg is concerned about one thing only, how much money can he make out of Farcebook users? He is happy to disregard privacy and safety concerns, if he can see an opportunity to increase profit.

 

Thats great ! i'll get even more emails from south african princes offering me loads of money if I help them out with only a few ££ for p&p... go zuckerberg ! A servant to all mankind!.cough, splutter, bye bye lung

 

Allowable.

 

It's not as simple as turning on switches for water, healthcare and food etc. Connectivity - whether by physical or digital is a core infrastructure benefit that aids the provision of jobs and information, which in turn brings investment for water, healthcare, food etc. The places in poverty need jobs and infrastructure in order to feed themselves, not to be continually fed.

Obviously physical infrastructure is the most beneficial, but digital connectivity has seen places elevate themselves faster in recent years than ever before.

If the UN does it these countries won't be servants in debt to big countries like the EU, US or China.

 

Facebook criticised for creating 'two tier internet' with Internet.org programme

Internet for the poor is a good thing, no doubt about it. But Zuckerberg is not impartial to such an endeavor so I for one hope the UN will not invest in his project.

 

Your heart is in the right place, but your thinking is not. This is what we get when people don't read the classics anymore. What did Dickens say about the link between knowledge and poverty?

'Spirit. are they yours.' Scrooge could say no more.

'They are Man's,' said the Spirit, looking down upon
them. 'And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers.
This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both,
and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy,
for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the
writing be erased. Deny it.' cried the Spirit, stretching out
its hand towards the city. 'Slander those who tell it ye.
Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse.
And abide the end.'

'Have they no refuge or resource.' cried Scrooge.

'Are there no prisons.' said the Spirit, turning on him
for the last time with his own words. 'Are there no workhouses.'

- A Christmas Carol, Stave 3: The Second of the Three Spirits

And communication is power too. I can think of one example where African farmers are able to command a better price for their product by being texted updates on the going market prices on their old Nokias. Children can access free educational resources. People can build business connections. My Mexican Feral Trade coffee farmee can sell his coffee to our little Birmingham food cooperative directly, cut out the middleman, for an equitable price --all via the internet.

Knowledge and information is power. Having a voice on the global stage is power.

 

I prefer the Muppet's version of A Christmas Carol myself.

 

More people will know it, that's for sure.

 

Are you out of your mind? Or do you simply enjoy being pompous and self-aggrandising?

What, from any of what I wrote, gave you cause to infer that I wasn't well read? Or were you just looking for an excuse to bestow upon us all your infinite wisdom and superiority?

Nowhere in what I wrote did I say these people shouldn't have internet access, what I was railing against was the fact that he wants to make it a priority. You seem to have missed that, repeatedly made, point.

This is what we get when people don't read properly anymore.

Yes the internet will obviously help certain people in certain situations improve their lot, and if the UN can help some regions with that then great, I'm all for it, but it should not be a priority of the United Nations when there are so many more pressing matters to contend with.

If you want to build a tower block you don't start by building the sexy penthouse at the top, you start by digging a bloody great hole in the ground and laying some foundations, digging trenches for water, electricity, sewage etc.

Every country and region in the world would benefit from being online, of course, but there are a lot of places that need stability and basic, physical infrastructure first. Those are the things that should be the priority of the UN.

Zuckerberg's own figures talk about the internet only helping 10% of people who access it out of poverty. Well, with limited resources, I think the UN clearly needs to focus on things that help more than 10% of those who are recipients of UN aid.

If you don't agree with me on that fine, argue your case against it, but don't just assume intellectual superiority by throwing a casual insult at me and then dropping in a quote you half-remembered and cut and paste from a quick Google search. It doesn't make me look upon you in awe and wonder, it makes me think you're an arse.

I wouldn't mind, but I'd already said education was one of the priorities anyway, (again with the reading properly...).

 

I appreciate what you're saying, (I think I've probably answered most of it in the post above) I totally agree with you that some countries need the means to get themselves out of poverty more than they need continuous and unending aid, I was just refuting Zuckerberg's means and motives for what he is asking.

I agree these countries shouldn't be perpetual servants to debt, I'm just disagreeing with the best way to achieve that goal.

Internet access will be a hugely expensive infrastructure to lay down for many places - irrespective of which method is used to deliver it. I was simply saying that making it a priority, (and so by definition putting it over and above other types of aid) would divert vital and limited resources away from other, more urgent needs. Like you said yourself, physical infrastructure is the most beneficial for people who don't have it.

I was also pointing out that Zuckerberg has a personal vested interest in wanting people to be online - and is therefore not arguing from an impartial or wholly magnanimous viewpoint.

 

Sorry that my Dickensian whimsy went down like a lead balloon; that was not intentional. My bad and I apologise.

To stick with the analogy of building a tower block. Wouldn't it be better if we gave the locals the means and knowledge to build their own? After all it's their building; they know best what it should be like.

It's the whole give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish thing.

Aid tends to treat the citizens of Third World countries like helpless victims who need to be given handouts. In practice that never works out: money and resources are whittled down as they go from middle man to middle man, each taking their share until perhaps only 20% remains. A nice example is an initiative to build some hygienic latrines in some Afghan village. The aid agency supplied the money. An international contractor then arranged a local contractor (at a fee of 10% please). The local contractor sourced a local timber company (10% please). The timber company was paid to send some wood to this village, without specification of what wood, for what purpose etc, They arranged a trucking company (transport fee please) to dump it in the village. As far as the villagers were concerned, the wood was all short, irregular timber and in any case nobody told them how to build latrines, or with what tools. So they used it as very, very expensive fire wood for cooking.

But poor people are not helpless. They are incredibly resourceful and determined, as witnessed by the fact that they are still alive. They don't so much need food or water or money but the means and opportunities to procure their own. They need access to information so they can educate themselves. They need communication so they can organise and co-operate. Had the aid agency given its money straight to the village, chances are they would have bought their own wood and tools and built the latrines if they felt that was a priority. Or perhaps built a school. Or perhaps bought a truck so they can transport their produce to the market. Or perhaps bought their own pump for the well. Either way, these people are experts in making a little go a long way.

Another problem is that a poor-ass country that has nothing going for it except regular million-pound donations in aid will attract politicians jostling for position to be the recipient of this bounty. It does not help capable governments, but attracts corrupt ones. The people at the bottom remain ignorant and poor.

People make the mistake of thinking that the UN can only do one thing at a time: either focus on clean water or inoculations, either on food or the internet. Not so. It's a big organisation. Moreover it is an organisation with limited resources so it has to spend them wisely --not just throw raw cash and resources at the problem. It has to plan how to divide and apply those resources to maximum effect. The internet is knowledge, information and communication, hence power. Just teaching people to boil their water can make a huge difference.

And internet infrastructure is cheap. Go over satellite, all you need is a dish in a village. In Tibet people are building a WiFi network from old, charity-donated parts and old car batteries charged by solar panels. It does not take as much money and tech as people think.

 

Also relevant: what happens if you give a homeless person £3000,-- to spend as they see fit?

 

That's not to say the Zuckster isn't a greedy industrialist looking to further his own dominance. But unlike most cases where industrialists make such moves, this might benefit more than a handful of executives.