[lunula]

It does seem that people in India are speaking up against this. Now you will quip that these activists must already have internet access, otherwise they would not even know to speak up. But the activists are at least from the same communities as the target market for this program. They are fighting for their families and friends. This seems very genuine and selfless in comparison to the motivations of the company and ego they are fighting against.

The alternative would be to ignore the activists and see if people like a free thing they have minimal understanding of. I think that they will, at least we both suspect they will. But I don't think this will make it right. That they will like the free thing does not make it good for the community. For instance, how many people would like free cigarettes or alcohol after their first few exposures? Many. Would their distribution be good for the community in the long run? No. But who would speak up? It won't be the uninitiated, and it won't be the company distributing the goods.

[Grue3]

>They are fighting for their families and friends.

The less charitable explanation is that they're fighting to keep their leg up on the less fortunate population. The gap between those with Internet access and without is absolutely enormous. If everyone has Internet access, this untaps incredible amount of people resources, which would drive down the demand for those who currently have Internet access. These "activists" have a lot to lose if the poor get allowed into the cool kids' treehouse.

[witty_username]

I really don't think the activists have any such motive.

[nileshtrivedi]

Especially because they laud and welcome steps like Aircel's free Internet, Airtel's cashback scheme, Google'e free wi-fi, Project Loon, Gigato, and even facebook's own cheap wi-fi installations.