> But there is a big chunk of users who learned to use the internet SOLELY for facebook, they remain there solely for that and would stop using it if it wasn't for facebook.

I'd argue that it would be better in most cases not to use the Internet if Facebook were the only option. Accepting Facebook as your "Internet" means that the next generations probably will not have a Free, open Internet.

I grew up before the Internet was widely used. Many aspects of life were better without the Internet. If you aren't doing something critical to your life with the Internet (and Facebook is not one of those critical things in most cases), then the Internet is not a necessity.

(The Internet is a necessity for many people these days, but Facebook is not a genuine necessity.)

You're missing the point. Why should we regress? The system, as it exists, freely allows these fabled old people of yours to access Facebook. But in letting net neutrality evaporate, the rest of us get screwed for no benefit.

Jesus, net neutrality makes my blood boil. Fuck Ajit Pai, that /r/punchablefaces wanker extraordinaire.

There's the rub. If the government made a neutral internet a human right, or increased competition by breaking up monopolies, the idiots who think they can get away with offering just Facebook would get royally shafted because consumers would realise that they can get a lot more for the same price by moving to the competition. This would lead to a glorious future where internet would be used properly for what it was intended to do: let anyone share anything with anyone else.

To add, how about Wikipedia doing the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero

You didn't answer my question. :)