I don&#x27;t know if I am somehow particular guilty of creating factions. Look at this thread or most of the links posted on Facebooks initiative. They are all unbelievable biased and political. (From both sides!)
There is little to no actual argumentative exchange in those pieces. Repetition trumps dialogue in public policy. Just compare it to some technical threads on HN.<p>Therefore I&#x27;d say factions are just a realistic description in this case.<p>&gt; The very idea of &quot;free basics&quot; is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access.<p>I don&#x27;t know.. You would agree that this is rhetoric? The gesture of reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it? Consider explaining your local bakeries expansion towards delivery by saying &quot;The very idea of their delivery is about normalizing the idea that you don&#x27;t go out to buy bread.&quot;
It tells us what you want others to believe the bakery is doing instead of what the bakery is actually doing.<p>While you are right to say that internet providers already exist, I am sure you would agree that this is not introducing your next claim which is &quot;Facebook is abusing their position [...] to manipulate people into supporting their plan.&quot;<p>&quot;Somebody manipulating others for support&quot; is biased rhetorics for &quot;Somebody is lobbying for his cause which I don&#x27;t like.&quot;<p>Of course they do need lobbying, which is what both sides currently do. Both do things that can be seen as manipulation. It is, however, unconnected to the first part of the sentence. Maybe to make it sound as if there is a causal relationship?<p>&quot;They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man.&#x27;<p>Of course every interest group, big or small, can lobby. But it&#x27;s probably advisable to name the opponents size if it can be used to create a big against small emotion or to introduce size-based exceptionalism.<p>&gt; [...]tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support &quot;free basics&quot;.<p>Facebook isn&#x27;t lying about people pressing their support button and I guess you know that. It&#x27;s simply a form designed to be sent by users. Software paternalism might be controversial, it however doesn&#x27;t take away peoples autonomy in deciding to press the blue &quot;send&quot; or &quot;sign&quot; instead of the small grey x. This is also how parts of change.org work.<p>Of course nudges convert to lies, lobbying converts to propaganda the moment the opposing campaign gets to describe them.<p>You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists. However, market theory is only tangentially relevant for the policy decision on banning facebooks initiativ or the analysis of it&#x27;s consequences. This is also true for the &quot;the homo economicus is wrong&quot; and the &quot;but there&#x27;s no perfect information&quot; memes.