> the apparent upside of Internet.org: people who wouldn't be able to afford or access the Internet can access at least some parts of it
Except that's just it. It's an apparent upside.
This assumes the existence of people who have phones but can't afford internet plans. That's not the case in India, at least. Data plans are pretty cheap, and if you can afford a phone that works on the modern internet (i.e., supports Facebook), you can afford these.
So it's not really providing some benefit. It's letting the impoverished save a small fraction of their income (okay, that is a benefit, but probably not major), and it's moving people off the Internet onto the Facebookternet.
A lot of the non-Internet-users are people who don't really want to or care to use the Internet, not due to poverty.
This does not line up with anything I've read about mobile Internet usage in India. You may be underestimating the willingness of poor people (the vast majority of India) to save up for an extremely low-end smart phone.
By and large, mobile Internet users in poor countries are extremely careful with their metered Internet usage and try to only use data while on wifi. 50% of Indians with smartphones deactivate their data, as a minimum-wage earning Indian needs to work 18 hours to afford a 500 MB top-up[2].
There's not much wifi in rural areas, one place that Internet.org is targeting. In cities, yes, but then they already had access to wifi.
I don't deny that folks will be judicious with their Internet. I'm refuting the humanitarian benefit touted by Facebook: "people who wouldn't be able to afford or access the Internet can access at least some parts of it". That's wrong. People who can afford the Internet will be able to access it more freely, agreed. And I did say that that is a benefit, but not major, especially the way things are going with respect to connectivity and data costs.
And as countless others have mentioned in this thread, Internet.org is not the only solution in place that tries to provide this.
If that's true, then no one has and no one will choose to use the service in meaningful numbers, and it won't be a "problem". People who want to can use it, and people who don't want to can use something else.
Except that's just it. It's an apparent upside.
This assumes the existence of people who have phones but can't afford internet plans. That's not the case in India, at least. Data plans are pretty cheap, and if you can afford a phone that works on the modern internet (i.e., supports Facebook), you can afford these.
So it's not really providing some benefit. It's letting the impoverished save a small fraction of their income (okay, that is a benefit, but probably not major), and it's moving people off the Internet onto the Facebookternet.
A lot of the non-Internet-users are people who don't really want to or care to use the Internet, not due to poverty.