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.
