There has been a lot of speculation going on around internet dot org. The initiative that was started by Mr.Zuckerberg. There are debates going on and on. On one hand, everyone should have access to internet. And Mark claims that he can do it. Will that be done from scratch or will the government lay down the infrastructure and make Mark the gateway? If that is the case, why not let PSU like BSNL do it? On the other hand, internet dot org will turn out to be evil, enhancing censorship and destroying democracy and of course going against net neutrality.

In this current age and time, access to internet is access to information.

It is a social problem. It is a political problem. It is an economic problem. Basically, it’s a problem.

A discussion on this is more than necessary. Feel free to criticise the ideas.

The below link is an article by Eben Moglen and Mishi Choudhary. They explain why Zuckerberg isn’t as much as a philnathropist as he is claiming to be by letting people have internet(.)org

I’ll ask you again what I asked you earlier. Internet dot org is a walled garden basically. Isn’t a walled garden better than no garden?

I’m all for the government taking some steps to get Internet to the poor and inhabitants of rural areas. But, there’s a delay factor involved.

In a “free” world, when the govt is capable enough to provide internet to everyone, I do not see the necessity of a walled garden.

And yet again, people will still have to pay the Telecom operator to get into the walled garden.

Which is like a zoo. You are paying to get into the cage.

With a democracy like ours, it is inevitable that delay is an effect. More over, as long as corruption exists, there will be delay. And private sectors do not follow any rules. And hence they do cause distress to the public.