> Well, I just think its a little classist to have these elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor Indians.
And it's not internet colonialism for Facebook to swoop down, decide what Indians need, and take over their internet?
In fact, I've seen many well informed arguments from the so-called "elites" with numbers about internet adoption and _why_ the Internet isn't used much in India. I've seen none of this from Facebook; which has just assumed that India is full of clueless poor people.
For example, if you look at the costs of mobile data in India, the cost of a smartphone that supports the modern web (enough for sites like, say, Facebook to be usable) is more than the cost of data for a year or two. Most of the people Free Basics "helped" already were able to get internet. Folks are jumping onto it because it's free (and "free" has its own charm "If it's free, why not?"). There may also be people who already had internet switching to the free thing since they mostly use Facebook/Whatsapp/etc.
And given that Facebook isn't even paying for the data, what's it's role here? Some infrastructure (which is unnecessary in the alternate net neutral free internet models -- the infrastructure is only to make "internet.org" work), and some outreach.
You see a bunch of elites pushing back a philanthrophic company trying to help the poor. We see a company deviously inserting itself in the midst of something our telecom operators could have made work on their own, and structuring it in a dangerous way so that it is highly benefited.
(On a side note, a lot of students who came from poverty are on the side of the "elites", but this is anecdotal)
> the sacrifice that the poor will make (by forgoing this service) to serve their ideal (net neutrality)
I already said that there are net neutral ways of doing the same thing. It's not a sacrifice. You're making the same non sequitur the article says that Zuckerberg is -- saying no to Free Basics is not the same as saying no to.
net neutrality isn't even the only ideal involved here. Privacy is. You know, that thing the West is so crazy about right now? Free Basics is structured as a massive MITM. Facebook is in the business of data, and we can't trust them to not exploit the MITM.
Are you going to tell us to ignore this -- the same thing the West is so crazy about -- because it helps the poor? Even though, I reiterate, there are multiple models which have worked which provide internet to the poor without any of this crap? You're asking us to roll over and accept whatever we get because poor people. If you're from the West (many of the folks making this kind of argument are), that's way more elitist.
> want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so
The internet, as Zuck himself is saying, is a public good and need. You don't unleash full market forces on those; capitalism can be harsh on them. An example is what's happened to the cost of higher education in the US.