Re: [HacksHackers NBO] Digest for hackshackers-nairobi@googlegroups.com - 7 updates in 1 topic
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Bernard Adongo
Jul 24, 2015, 2:33:04 AM7/24/15
to hackshacke...@googlegroups.com
Seriously, guys,
I think competition is great.. And allowing as many global players as possible into our ecosystem can only be a plus.. Internet.org, is, of course, fighting the general trend of ever lower-priced high spec devices & ever-rising bandwidth (ever falling mbps prices).On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:59 AM, <hackshacke...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Simeon Oriko <simeo...@gmail.com>: Jul 23 11:54AM +0300
Thanks for your thoughts Sam. But I respectfully disagree for one simple reason. Sasha put it best:
“Internet.org and its parent Facebook are not benevolent public interest entities”
Once you understand this, especially in the light of net neutrality and open principles, you’ll realize that a walled garden - platform or service, isn’t beneficial to anyone in any way.
Facebook doesn’t need to regulate quality of apps, bandwidth, network quality etc - the market does that for itself perfectly well. Letting Facebook regulate through Internet.org in the name of providing the best service to the unconnected (note that this is their primary target audience - not low bandwidth users etc) is essentially giving up your freedom to choose for yourself.
If anyone can correctly justify why Facebook should regulate anything for me, then I’m happy to not only accept, but also endorse Internet.org. Until then, I’m for Net Neutrality and keeping the web free and open away from silos.
Secondly, it’s awesome you focus on the end user. Perfect. We need to be thinking about them and frankly, I don’t need Facebook to help me do this. I can go to the end user myself, ask their needs and design for them. For a region that prides itself with design thinking skills, this shouldn’t be too hard to do and does not require an intermediary to do it either.
My major focus however is about the impact on the tech community. We keep being owned by some organization and it never ends well. It started with Android and the whole Google craze. Then we went to Nokia and Samsung for a bit. Then Microsoft came in and woo’d the community. What do we tangibly have to show for it in terms of impact? The various organisations got more content on their app stores and more numbers to brag about - things they can directly profit off of. Nothing wrong with this. They’re in it to make money - after all, they’re not benevolent public interest entities.
But what did the community get? What tangible impact was there? Economically? Socially? You well know I’m a data guy so if you have these stats, I’m happy to look over them.
Now it’s Facebook’s turn. With all the lessons we can learn from dealing with past organizations, will we continue down the same path with Facebook? Especially at the costly price of freedom?
Kind Regards,
Simeon Oriko | Digital and Innovation Strategist
Web: www.mtotowajirani.com | Twitter: @mtotowajirani
LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/simeonoriko
Cell: +254 724 892 941 | Skype: simeonoriko
On July23, 2015 at 02:14:43, Sam Wakoba (wako...@gmail.com) wrote:
Great point Simeon,
I think the function is to introduce local devs to using Internet.org as a platform and not as a service. As a platform, it will be open to everyone with zero discrimination unlike as a service where just a few apps are handpicked. By coming to iHub where most of you are members, it means your apps qualify-you and your friends who need to hear this. Internet.org as a platform is open to as many developers and entrepreneurs to open the internet to everyone and is transparent and inclusive.
Why build on/for Internet.org? Unlike you and I who are nearly on 4G, there are folks who need these bandwidth-low apps which they can access via the Internet.org app which will be like a door to the internet for them. Internet.org as a service has been launched in Zambia Colombia, Guatemala, Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa and a couple others inclusing the Philippines and Indonesia.
One of the mistake the as a service had was to zero rate Facebook, Wikipedia, BBC News, some jobs sites among others but the net nuetrality issue made the giant Facebook to change track to open the platform for every developer in stead of talking exclusively to some developers.However, there's Catch22, as it has to qualify the developers-probably due to quality, ethics among others. A few of the requirements before the net neutrality issue were -apps not being high-bandwidth, not VoIP or video, file transfer services or those apps with high resolution or high volume of photos-must have been resolved though.
India which strongly opposed internet.org as a service has 350 million internet users and is set to hit 500m in two years and doesn't need this welfare in the name of Internet.org whether as a platform or as a service. Kenya, on the other hand is still struggling to double up its numbers. You personally help kids get onlineto access educational materials and if they can get anything low-bandwidth before they get 4G or fiber could make sense.
We can't rely on welfare to push our agenda but in a failed market welfare is bound to come in-most likely in another name not Internet.org. But yes, I support Internet.org as a platform and not as as a service because there's nothing as free lunch!
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Simeon Oriko <simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
That, in my opinion, will be reacting when it’s too late. I’d rather be proactive about this.
I’ve emailed the iHub team and asked them to reconsider the event and do away with the elements of the program that promote Internet.org as a service. Anything less will be a direct attack on net neutrality and keeping the web free and open.
Also Facebook shouldn’t use the local tech community as pawns for selfish gain. It’s about time the community also woke up to the impact of certain activities happening in the space rather than be blinded by short term benefits.
Kind Regards,
Simeon Oriko | Digital and Innovation Strategist
Web: www.mtotowajirani.com | Twitter: @mtotowajirani
LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/simeonoriko
Cell: +254 724 892 941 | Skype: simeonoriko
On July22, 2015 at 20:14:48, Njira Perci (nji...@gmail.com) wrote:
We should probably attend the event to make sure that that issue is addressed..
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HacksHackers Nairobi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackshackers-nai...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HacksHackers Nairobi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackshackers-nai...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HacksHackers Nairobi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackshackers-nai...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Simeon Oriko <simeo...@gmail.com>: Jul 23 12:09PM +0300
One more thing:
We shouldn’t be turning the attention of our community developers to platforms and services. We should be focusing on specific skills.
We had this right at the early days of our community. We were known to be PHP guru’s and many were even contributing code to the PHP Open Source Project.
Then we lost it and started developing for S40 and S60 platforms. Where are those platforms now? Then we went to Android. Is there a chance this can, in the future perhaps, fade away as well? What of that time we were all Meego and Bada? Remember that?
We can learn a lot from our neighbours in Uganda who have focused their efforts on building the capacity of their community members’ skills. They were pretty much the first to adopt and use Ruby and Python on a wide scale in East Africa.
UG has a wider variety of technical skillets than we do - primarily because they focused on skills instead of platforms.
Point is, platforms/services/frameworks will come and go. Actual competency in specific skills will pretty much stand the test of time. If you don’t believe me, find the less than 10 COBOL programmers in the country that are making tons of money maintaining legacy ATM and security systems in EA.
Kind Regards,
Simeon Oriko | Digital and Innovation Strategist
Web: www.mtotowajirani.com | Twitter: @mtotowajirani
LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/simeonoriko
Cell: +254 724 892 941 | Skype: simeonoriko
On July23, 2015 at 11:54:11, Simeon Oriko (simeo...@gmail.com) wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts Sam. But I respectfully disagree for one simple reason. Sasha put it best:
“Internet.org and its parent Facebook are not benevolent public interest entities”
Once you understand this, especially in the light of net neutrality and open principles, you’ll realize that a walled garden - platform or service, isn’t beneficial to anyone in any way.
Facebook doesn’t need to regulate quality of apps, bandwidth, network quality etc - the market does that for itself perfectly well. Letting Facebook regulate through Internet.org in the name of providing the best service to the unconnected (note that this is their primary target audience - not low bandwidth users etc) is essentially giving up your freedom to choose for yourself.
If anyone can correctly justify why Facebook should regulate anything for me, then I’m happy to not only accept, but also endorse Internet.org. Until then, I’m for Net Neutrality and keeping the web free and open away from silos.
Secondly, it’s awesome you focus on the end user. Perfect. We need to be thinking about them and frankly, I don’t need Facebook to help me do this. I can go to the end user myself, ask their needs and design for them. For a region that prides itself with design thinking skills, this shouldn’t be too hard to do and does not require an intermediary to do it either.
My major focus however is about the impact on the tech community. We keep being owned by some organization and it never ends well. It started with Android and the whole Google craze. Then we went to Nokia and Samsung for a bit. Then Microsoft came in and woo’d the community. What do we tangibly have to show for it in terms of impact? The various organisations got more content on their app stores and more numbers to brag about - things they can directly profit off of. Nothing wrong with this. They’re in it to make money - after all, they’re not benevolent public interest entities.
But what did the community get? What tangible impact was there? Economically? Socially? You well know I’m a data guy so if you have these stats, I’m happy to look over them.
Now it’s Facebook’s turn. With all the lessons we can learn from dealing with past organizations, will we continue down the same path with Facebook? Especially at the costly price of freedom?
Kind Regards,
Simeon Oriko | Digital and Innovation Strategist
Web: www.mtotowajirani.com | Twitter: @mtotowajirani
LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/simeonoriko
Cell: +254 724 892 941 | Skype: simeonoriko
On July23, 2015 at 02:14:43, Sam Wakoba (wako...@gmail.com) wrote:
Great point Simeon,
I think the function is to introduce local devs to using Internet.org as a platform and not as a service. As a platform, it will be open to everyone with zero discrimination unlike as a service where just a few apps are handpicked. By coming to iHub where most of you are members, it means your apps qualify-you and your friends who need to hear this. Internet.org as a platform is open to as many developers and entrepreneurs to open the internet to everyone and is transparent and inclusive.
Why build on/for Internet.org? Unlike you and I who are nearly on 4G, there are folks who need these bandwidth-low apps which they can access via the Internet.org app which will be like a door to the internet for them. Internet.org as a service has been launched in Zambia Colombia, Guatemala, Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa and a couple others inclusing the Philippines and Indonesia.
One of the mistake the as a service had was to zero rate Facebook, Wikipedia, BBC News, some jobs sites among others but the net nuetrality issue made the giant Facebook to change track to open the platform for every developer in stead of talking exclusively to some developers.However, there's Catch22, as it has to qualify the developers-probably due to quality, ethics among others. A few of the requirements before the net neutrality issue were -apps not being high-bandwidth, not VoIP or video, file transfer services or those apps with high resolution or high volume of photos-must have been resolved though.
India which strongly opposed internet.org as a service has 350 million internet users and is set to hit 500m in two years and doesn't need this welfare in the name of Internet.org whether as a platform or as a service. Kenya, on the other hand is still struggling to double up its numbers. You personally help kids get onlineto access educational materials and if they can get anything low-bandwidth before they get 4G or fiber could make sense.
We can't rely on welfare to push our agenda but in a failed market welfare is bound to come in-most likely in another name not Internet.org. But yes, I support Internet.org as a platform and not as as a service because there's nothing as free lunch!
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Simeon Oriko <simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
That, in my opinion, will be reacting when it’s too late. I’d rather be proactive about this.
I’ve emailed the iHub team and asked them to reconsider the event and do away with the elements of the program that promote Internet.org as a service. Anything less will be a direct attack on net neutrality and keeping the web free and open.
Also Facebook shouldn’t use the local tech community as pawns for selfish gain. It’s about time the community also woke up to the impact of certain activities happening in the space rather than be blinded by short term benefits.
Kind Regards,
Simeon Oriko | Digital and Innovation Strategist
Web: www.mtotowajirani.com | Twitter: @mtotowajirani
LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/simeonoriko
Cell: +254 724 892 941 | Skype: simeonoriko
On July22, 2015 at 20:14:48, Njira Perci (nji...@gmail.com) wrote:
We should probably attend the event to make sure that that issue is addressed..
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HacksHackers Nairobi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackshackers-nai...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HacksHackers Nairobi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackshackers-nai...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HacksHackers Nairobi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackshackers-nai...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Njira Perci <nji...@gmail.com>: Jul 23 12:55PM +0300
As I wait for my competency to stand the test of time I need to make a
living. And if I can earn more from a Microsoft hackathon than a Kenyan
employer then by all means I will help myself to it.
While we are still upcoming we cannot afford the luxury of choice, later on
when we get the networks, recognition and what have you and our hearts are
settled is when we can bother about other factors other than where our next
rent will come from.
Njira Perci <nji...@gmail.com>: Jul 23 12:57PM +0300
I also don't think that those COBOL developers have done only COBOL in
their lifetimes.. There must have been a season when they were also chasing
what was hot then, then money stopped being an issue then they married COBOL
Simeon Oriko <simeo...@gmail.com>: Jul 23 01:06PM +0300
At the price of freedom?
Do you realize a free and open web is the reason you’re able to learn skills, build networks and get recognition in the first place? And you want to trade that freedom? For what exactly?
What has Facebook (and all these other organizations) done for you that you are so loyal to them?
Simeon Oriko | Digital and Innovation Strategist
Web: www.mtotowajirani.com | Twitter: @mtotowajirani
LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/simeonoriko
Cell: +254 724 892 941 | Skype: simeonoriko
On July23, 2015 at 12:57:24, Njira Perci (nji...@gmail.com) wrote:
I also don't think that those COBOL developers have done only COBOL in their lifetimes.. There must have been a season when they were also chasing what was hot then, then money stopped being an issue then they married COBOL
Soud Hyder <maji...@gmail.com>: Jul 23 03:11AM -0700
1 billion + MAU's , include WhatsApp and Instagram it get crazier, one of
those in or out situations, damned if you do and damned if you don't,
--
S o u d H y d e r
M: +254 722 387 512
Sasha Kinney <sa...@kenyanikwetu.org>: Jul 23 01:38PM +0300
I would just add one point + send more detailed info from EFF on
Internet.org, as below.
We shouldn't make this a simple pro/con discussion, where Facebook is
either embraced or condemned. In or out. Isn't it about the terms of
engagement, the conditions of what's offered?
We have voice and leverage here. The welfare *mentality* is what keeps us
down...
We don't need to roll over to Facebook's conditions any more than Indians
do. Also, our only choice isn't to opt out, which conveniently isn't
possible anyway. Now, instead, by wholeheartedly embracing and celebrating
such efforts, we are just making it even harder for even others to push for
freer fairer terms.
And a little informed conversation and pressure can really change things.
It already has forced some changes
<http://www.wired.com/2015/05/internet-org-expands-net-neutrality/> from
Zuckerberg and Internet.org. In South Africa, Right2Know took this stance
<http://allafrica.com/stories/201505180799.html>, a strong one though not
sure it was that constructive... but at least it's a starting point for
negotiations. State your position, at least. If we don't advocate for
larger community interests, who will?
Sasha
*EFF: *We agree that some Internet access is better than none, and if that
is what Internet.org actually provided—for example, through a uniformly
rate-limited or data-capped free service—then it would have our full
support. But it doesn't. Instead, it continues to impose conditions and
restraints that not only make it something less than a true Internet
service, but also endanger people's privacy and security.
the whole article
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutral-not-secure-and-not-internet>
:
Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Internet
MAY 18, 2015 | BY JEREMY GILLULA AND JEREMY MALCOLM
Facebook's Internet.org project, which offers people from developing
countries free mobile access to selected websites, has been pitched as a
philanthropic initiative to connect two thirds of the world who don’t yet
have Internet access. We completely agree that the global digital divide
should be closed. However, we question whether this is the right way to do
it. As we and others have noted, there's a real risk that the few websites
that Facebook and its partners select for Internet.org (including, of
course, Facebook itself) could end up becoming a ghetto for poor users
instead of a stepping stone to the larger Internet.
Mark Zuckerberg's announcement of the expansion of the Internet.org
platform earlier this month was aimed to address some of these criticisms.
In a nutshell, the changes would allow any website operator to submit their
site for inclusion in Internet.org, provided that it meets the program's
guidelines. Those guidelines are neutral as to the subject matter of the
site, but do impose certain technical limitations intended to ensure that
sites do not overly burden the carrier's network, and that they will work
on both inexpensive feature phones and modern smartphones.
Compliance with the guidelines will be reviewed by the Internet.org team,
which may then make the site available for Internet.org users to access for
free, by routing the communication through the Internet.org proxy server.
That proxy server allows the sites to be “zero rated” by participating
mobile phone operators; allows the automatic stripping out of content that
violates the guidelines—such as images greater than 1Mb in size, videos,
VoIP calls, Flash and Java applets and even JavaScript; and inserts an
interstitial warning if a user attempts to leave Internet.org's zero-rated
portion of the Internet, so as to prevent users from accidentally being
billed for data charges they may not be able to afford and didn't mean to
incur.
We agree that some Internet access is better than none, and if that is what
Internet.org actually provided—for example, through a uniformly
rate-limited or data-capped free service—then it would have our full
support. But it doesn't. Instead, it continues to impose conditions and
restraints that not only make it something less than a true Internet
service, but also endanger people's privacy and security.
That's because the technical structure of Internet.org prevents some users
from accessing services over encrypted HTTPS connections. As we mentioned
above, a critical component of Internet.org is its proxy server, which
traffic must pass through for the zero-rating and the interstitial warning
to work correctly. Some devices, like Android phones running Internet.org's
app, have the technical ability to make encrypted HTTPS connections through
the proxy server without becoming vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks
or exposing any data (beyond the domain being requested) to Facebook.
Internet.org's Android app can also automatically bring up the interstitial
warning directly on the phone by using the app to analyze links (as opposed
to Facebook serving the warning via its proxy server).
But most inexpensive feature phones that can't run an Android app don't
support phone-based warnings or this sort of proxying of HTTPS connections.
For these phones, traffic must pass through Internet.org's proxy
unencrypted, which means that any information users send or receive from
Internet.org's services could be read by local police or national
intelligence agencies and expose its users to harm. While Facebook is
working to solve this problem, it's extremely difficult from a technical
perspective, with no obvious solution.
Even if Facebook were able to figure out a way to support HTTPS proxying on
feature phones, its position as Internet gatekeepers remains more broadly
troublesome. By setting themselves up as gatekeepers for free access to
(portions of) the global Internet, Facebook and its partners have issued an
open invitation for governments and special interest groups to lobby,
cajole or threaten them to withhold particular content from their service.
In other words, Internet.org would be much easier to censor than a true
global Internet.
While we applaud Facebook's efforts to encourage more websites to provide
support for low-end feature phones by stripping out “heavy” content, we
would like to see Internet.org try harder to achieve its very worthy
objective of connecting the remaining two thirds of the world to the
Internet. We have confidence that it would be possible to provide a limited
free Internet access service that is secure, and that doesn't rely on
Facebook and its partners to maintain a central list of approved sites.
Until then, Internet.org will not be living up to its promise, or its name.
You have received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to hackshackers-nai...@googlegroups.com.
caleb ndaka
Jul 24, 2015, 2:40:04 AM7/24/15
to hackshacke...@googlegroups.com
Thanks guys for your contributions.
Great insights shared
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages