[tough_luck]

I (as an Indian with easy access to internet) may not be target audience of this service, but I would also have to suffer the implication of such service on telecom policy of my country, by which I mean, end of net-neutrality. That I want very much to be maintained. So I, and other Indians who are against it for this reason, have all right to oppose it.

[bko]

Well its in your right to choose not to use it, advocate that it should not be used by others or offer an alternative. You shouldn't have the right to force others to not use the product and therefore bare a cost to serve your ideal.

[splintercell]

But why do you not want poor people to have Internet? Some entrepreneur is able to build a business plan around helping poor people, and people are demanding that instead he must do charity.

Charity is not the reason why you're not the intended audience of that market.

Regarding net neutrality, that idea needs to die (and I know it's a hugely unpopular thing to say on HN). All bits are NOT created equal, some bits are more economically valuable than others. This is a fight you can't win, because it isn't against special interest groups etc, it is against the reality itself.

[Manishearth]

> But why do you not want poor people to have Internet?

You're making the exact same fallacy the article says Zuck makes. Free Basics is not the only solution, there are other solutions out there which don't need Facebook's involvement, which could and should be implemented. Opposing Free Basics is not opposing free internet. Get rid of that strawman.