>I explained what Google can help with: searching for information, reading news, etc. He showed me that he read news and did searches for things all from within the Facebook app.

This is the most frightening thing I've read in a while.

AOL 2.0

I can only imagine being frightened by this if I held a large stake in Google. Do you have a different reason?

This is such a crappy suggestion: That we are all just acting in our own self-interest. I'm privileged enough that this is not the case, and I despise the implication. It's like voting for Trump just because of the huge tax cut I will get. Not everyone thinks this way.

Death of the open web. It isn't google per se, it's that there is no knowledge/interest of the things outside of the Facebook garden.

Google sends you to other websites, Facebook tends to keep you within their walled garden/echo chamber.

Now, I am not saying google is the perfect answer, but I consider it a hell of a lot better than facebook.

This. I don't know if the parent was asking a serious question or trolling, but my response is an "anti-Facebook" one, not a "pro-Google" one. Facebook has demonstrated that it is willing to exert much more editorial control, and is much more interested in "controlling your experience". Google seems focused on attempting to provide you with the most quality content that addresses your query.

Maybe that's what it is. "Quality content" and "Facebook" in the same sentence sounds absurd.

I guess it depends on how you see things. I see Google wanting to exert their own power and control on you as well. See all of their own property integrations into search results, quoting the first result as an "answer" whether it be right or wrong, snippets in news, Amp, Yelp and other suing Google for preferring its own placements, Google recommending you install a modern browser called Chrome when you're using Firefox (not sure if they do this anymore. I'd assume not).

Google also linking to the web after ads or their own stuff is a benefit over FB of course. But I don't see that being Google's focus.

Yet Google keeps adding things to their results pages to keep you either on Google or within Google properties. See for example Yelp and others suing.

Buzzfeed has some surprisingly good long form pieces. A recent one discusses in detail what's going on in Myanmar[1]. I found it interesting, but depressing.

The cesspool of fake news, Trump gossip, etc, turning into hot topics amongst Myanmar's budding online culture is sad, like a virus spreading.

Another worrisome side effect is the quick adoption of the medium by hate groups inciting violence towards religious minorities with outright lies compounded by the fact that most Myanmar users don't yet know fact checking is possible thanks to the walled garden.

Some users have landed in jail for not realizing posts containing jests about government officials were viewable by said authorities. The country's speech laws are still evolving and users struggle to understand brand new ceoncepts like scoping of comments.

Interesting times...

[1]. https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/fake-news-spreads-tru...

Wow, thanks for the article... extremely interesting. Very nice writeup. So many great tidbits there, and all ring true with what I saw firsthand.

Facebook saw the "we're saturating the number of people on the Internet" wall years ago. That's why they zero-rate the app, and integrated SMS notifications and had J2ME and SIM apps.

They also have a "free basics" program which partners with networks (I think primarily developing countries) and gives people access to Facebook with no network/bandwidth costs. Seems like a win-win? https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org

Um no. https://qz.com/612159/why-trai-backed-net-neutrality-and-kil...

Gotcha. I'm not sure it's a win-win, but it feels crazy to say that giving 0 free sites is better than giving Facebook free. It's a level playing field, sure, but consumers are worse off than if they had free access to Facebook.

In my opinion, opportunity is better than equality.

A lot of people think this way, Zuck included, and that's what makes the decision in India so interesting and, at least for me, correct.

FB does not categorically improve the quality of life for its users. FB provides connectivity to others... this is good. But if the cost is making you think the world is askew from what it really is because all you see is what FB's feed shows you... well that's a steep price that nobody, even the poor, should be asked to pay.

That's just in India where Free Basics doesn't exist. Facebook Free Basics is absolutely live and in use in 62 other countries:

https://info.internet.org/en/story/where-weve-launched/

I wasn't suggesting it's failing. The point I was replying to was if Free Basics is a "win-win" and I'm saying there's at least one large democratic nation that thought otherwise.

I envision that Facebook really wants to become the wechat of the world. From the lessons of Trump, if mark becomes the president I see him really pushing FB politically.