When explaining why heroin is bad and should remain illegal, how often do critics point out the drug's pros? Are critics not being objective or honest when they adamantly condemn it? Or, what about when assessing the results of Hitler's reign in Germany? Are historians being dishonest and subjective when they don't bring up the positive consequences of his actions?

There are countless other examples. If someone feels very negatively about "Free Basics", I'm not sure why they're not being objective or honest by leaving out potential pros.