> Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet.
You mean control over the internet access they're providing, that otherwise doesn't exist?
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.