That's not "the Internet" as it is known, but another kind of service. They wouldn't have internet. They'd have something else that could easily be (and probably will be) designed to placate the desire to have internet.
Living in a third world country right now that's rapidly developing. This is almost exclusively a smartphone-only internet society: "the internet" equals to Facebook, Youtube and Skype. Maybe some Clash of Clans, but that's it. There is no desire to open a web browser.
I don't see this changing any time in the future, either. There are still a lot of people without decent internet access here. I am pretty sure nearly all of these people will use Facebook's version of the internet, were it made available to them.
And don't have any illusions: there is no such thing as "net neutrality" here: internet speeds for domestic internet is way faster and cheaper than "real" internet. People have domestic-only internet plans, simply because it's all they need. So there already is massive restrictions put on the internet here, and I would argue that internet.org is not as evil as the local ISPs are.
Smartphone/app only internet is completely different from desktop-centric internet like it is in western countries.
Does nobody ever have to use google to look something up? Something as simple as sickness symptoms or how to make bread or whether it's going to rain on Saturday? Surely these would require net neutrality and won't be all covered by youtube and wikipedia?
No, really, not. I live in Cambodia. Cambodian people care about Facebook, but nobody ever taught them how to use Google. They simply do not know about anything that is withing Safari or Chrome.
Education is low here, but smartphone penetration very high. It's all about sharing pictures and videos through Facebook.
And if the argument assumes that they'll eventually have the ability to get full internet, but won't want it at whatever price it costs, then isn't that their choice? If having a free service makes them unwilling to pay for a better service, what's the problem?
There's no options being denied here. For anyone that wants, Facebook's offering has only benefits. If someone thinks it has drawbacks, they're free not to use it. I seriously don't see the problem here.
So enabling people to access some sites is now evil because it makes people money (which there's no evidence for; who's paying to advertise to people to poor to pay for internet?)
Do you honestly think the only way the internet could possibly reach these people is through Facebook? This is not an all vs nothing situation. This is a problem with dozens of different solutions and hundreds of different possible outcomes. Facebook says their plan makes for a just world, and you agree with that because you're both being myopic. Facebook at least has an excuse.
There are other providers. Aircel is offering free data at 64kbps. Airtel has started subsidized browsing at off-peak hours. Mozilla has a proposal for ad-subsidized Internet access. And all this is while Internet user base is already growing at 4% every month!
Right now, there are no other providers in these areas. So if you ban internet.org, they won't have any internet. Whether other companies might go there in the future is not relevant to the question of whether internet.org should be banned now.
According to you, if internet.org is so horribly evil, why would anyone freely choose to sign up for it?
> Right now, there are no other providers in these areas.
This largely isn't correct. There are other providers, they just cost some money.
This [0] comment by aravindet captures everything that one needs to know. These people are going to get the internet, the question is whether we should allow some company to spend its capital turning them into a captive market for its own financial gain.
If they can get internet without internet.org, then they aren't exactly being forced into it, right? I still don't see how the consumer is losing by having more choices, and how they would gain if internet.org would be disallowed.
