I feel "evil plan" is a stretch. The worst case of malice you can attribute to FB is they are trying acquire huge untapped user base but disguising the fact under sheet of public good.
Well that's exactly what Internet.org and Free Basics is. Transparently so. FB has 1.5 billion users in a world with 7.3 billion people. It's not an exaggeration to say that pretty much everyone 13 and up with an Internet connection that wants a Facebook account, has one. That means that the only way you can grow your user base is to increase the number of people with an Internet connection.
Zuck and Facebook do bill Free Basics as a charity, but yet, they're not giving the Internet, they're giving poor people what Zuckerberg wants. They're not hooking up Twitter are they? They say it's because of "agreements", but really it comes down to the fact that they are paying the telcoms money, and they want an audience for their ads. Now that's not immoral, but it's not a charity, so don't expect people to say how great and benevolent they are. Now FB could pay for the real Internet, but they don't, because they're not a charity. It's this mismatch between rhetoric and actions that really pisses people off.
We saw this before when Google first started operating in China. The Google Triumvirate said, "Hey, isn't some Internet better than no Internet?" (The exact same argument that Zuck is making today.) Of course, the Chinese had Baidu at the time, and Baidu actually worked better for Chinese language search than Google as well. The real reason Google wanted in China wasn't to spread knowledge, but rather to get access to the 1.4 billion potential users, because pretty much everyone with an Internet connection outside of China already used Google.
Yes, and if Zuck is that much interested to provide free internet to Indians, he can get in talks with the govt. of India and start providing free Wi-Fi to Indians. He may make a norm to have an FB account to get access to the Wi-Fi, for that matter. This could be a way more better option.
He may not violate netneutrality plus can expand his user base also.
But he may not go with this solution. It is less cost effective. But as it is a charity, cost shouldn't be a point.
Zuck is masking his for-profit venture with charity.
