Ads are increasingly about product placement, brand presence and being top of mind. Especially when you can be sure that 80% of your clickthroughs on Facebook are from some bot network that Facebook doesn't bother to crack down on because it adds to their userbase metric, which is what the derive such a high valuation from. [1]
I'm sure coke, nestle, and other branded basic commodities (food, drink, clothing) would love a way to show ads to this low-income segment.
So do you really believe FB did it for the good of the people and that this free basics thing is good? What do you think a poor guy without access to proper resources like food, education will gain by sharing likes on FB?
Net neutrality was the last bastion of freedom online, but it's somehow too high of a standard for societies with lower rates of internet access?
If you rely on government to build free internet access infrastructure for poor people, it could take long time. While on the other hand, fb has managed to build something and convinced telcos to give it for free to poor and promised that they will soon see those people converting into a full-internet user and will pay you the normal rate.
So, actually the grand plan is to get them to use full internet, which is not bad for either parties I think.
I don't see that anywhere. It's almost as if there is a lot of money in getting a class of people to think FB is the internet by cutting off any real initiative for full internet access.
It's all about the USA doing exactly that, by promising massive GDP gains. When they fail to net the profit required to pay the contractors, the contractors take over the infrastructure -- netting the USA dozens of corporate-owned electrical infrastructure all over the world, chiefly South America & the Middle East (!!)
[and even poor people may be advertising targets, for the right customer. Loan sharks? Political parties? Religious groups?]