How is the world with no Facebook plane in any way better than the world with a Facebook plane that provides Facebook access? If you don't want Facebook access, or you already have it, the two worlds are indistinguishable.
Even ignoring the massive man-in-the-middle attack problems from running old phones on a proxy, Facebook is positioning themselves to control exclusive access to large number of users for websites.
You could argue that Google already does this - but Google has competitors that users could switch to in a heartbeat. Internet.org users don't have options, and websites need to pander to Facebook to be in that walled garden. It also makes it easier for third world countries to censor the internet.
In the end, this is damaging to the open internet ecosystem. Facebook could have just implemented a rate-limited or data capped system like other ISPs, but they opted to create a more restrictive system that gives them more power.
You mean control over the internet access they're providing, that otherwise doesn't exist?
That's why it's a false dichotomy. Internet.org could very easily be rate and data capped alternatives.
>connect the two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet access. -Internet.org
This would give them monopsonic control over the internet.
Sorry that is extremely far from the truth. Any of the other major ISPs' would leap at the chance to guzzle up these customers if there was no other competition.
So you're saying that it's okay to ignore net neutrality (charge Netflix) when the government isn't there to help subsidize last-mile infrastructure? When you could just as easily provide a capped alternative?
That's the point and splitting hairs doesn't change it.