> subsidize internet access in the developing world

Are you talking about Facebook's abuse of power to strengthen its monopoly position in developing nations?

If so, 83% of voters in the USA thinks what you are describing as "subsidy" should be illegal here[1], and it would better be described as neo-colonialism than a subsidy.

Is there some other way in which facebook is "subsidizing internet access"?

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent...

I don’t think OP is talking net neutrality, but Internet.org

I assumed he/she was. Internet.org is in direct opposition to the principle of net neutrality.

Does enabling illegal renting ads make you feel good? https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-disc...

...and accelerate the concentration of wealth and power to the point where the top 10% are starting to complain about the top 1%. Moving into developing nations is just the system expanding to extract what little surplus value they create.

If the point about small businesses was true, we'd see a worldwide surge in their numbers. I don't think we do.

It makes sense, too — the overall pile of disposable income didn't meaningfully increase thanks to Facebook, so it's a zero sum game between small businesses and Coca-Cola. We know who wins that in the long term. Although now with local papers out of business, gutted by facebook.

What about the fact that ads are the only reason garbage such as clickbait and misinformation exists? A lot of that garbage wouldn't exist if its only revenue stream wasn't there.

What about the countless scams or dubious products advertised in Facebook ads while you look the other way because they're still making money for company? If you have the power to broadcast content to a major part of the world's population, this should also involve some responsibility and strict controls on the content, aka thorough human reviews. I don't care if it makes the prices of the ads go up; legitimate brands will still be able to afford it, and the market will become a better place for everyone (plus maybe with less crap in the ads people will actually like them a bit more).

Finally, if you want to do ads, why not just ask the users what products they're interested in, categories they belong to, etc and use that for targeting instead of stalking their every move to try and infer this information?

I suggest you read this regarding the negative impacts of advertising on society: http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html

It's like a cult, isn't it? In no world can what Facebook's ad system teams are doing be summarized by that level of autofellatio but Facebook. Hacker News is for intellectually stimulating discussions, not marketing-speak to mask false claims. For the record, your claims are primarily false. They pulled out of most of those countries a long while ago, after they realized "colonizer killing net neutrality" is a bad look.

https://theoutline.com/post/4383/facebook-quietly-ended-free...

And the "small businesses" you describe are mostly MLM and anti-vaccine snake oil sellers, so I'm not sure why you feel good about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/11/15/majority-an...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/anti-vaccination-group...

With all the respect due, you've got blood on your hands. We have a word for that in civilized society; I think it's "murderer," but maybe they call it something different at Facebook.

Apparently it doesn't feel good enough to post on a non-throwaway though.

What about all the misinformation, conspiracy theories, bad medical information (which can get people killed), and false political ads? Does the "primary growth engine" marketing speak make it all better?