[ignoramous]

Strange that you find the CEO utmost sincere but the company utmost suspicious.

If I were you, I'd question the intentions too. The arguments have been laid out against "Free Basics" but Facebook has refused to engage the community. It continues to push its agenda forward by running dubious ad-campaigns and surveys.

This is the second time Facebook has tried something similar, after having lost the first round of battle that led to many Indians uninstalling apps and boycotting websites that supported/participated in its "internet.org" initiative.

Zuckerberg has managed to PR himself as sincere, honest, noble, altruist and what not... but that PR hasn't worked in India. He, personally, holds no sway unlike, may be, in SV.

"Free Basics" let's not kid ourselves is a move by Facebook to take control of the Internet. It already controls 4 of the most popular apps on mobile in the English speaking world (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger); with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact.

You even see Google trying to do that in a more subtle way... googleweblight, subsidized Nexus line of products, "free and open source" Android with tightly controlled ecosystem, Chrome with properiteary plug-ins, Fiber, Fi, and OnHub to quote a few.

[rms_returns]

> with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact.

It is not just that. The worrying thing is that they are violating net neutrality by making sure that "FB and friends" is the only thing accessible on this free internet. If Mr. Zuckerberg is that altruistic, why not provide proper full internet? Even a limited (say 500MB per person/month) internet for free is better than nothing.

But no, they want to violate net neutrality by disallowing everyone else. They don't want to provide HTTPS security, but again snoop around their user's data so monies could be made out of that. Is this altruism, Mr. Zuckerberg?

[bduerst]

Facebook is blatantly violating net neutrality.

I'm surprised this isn't in headlines. Imagine the backlash if Comcast charged you to access Netflix but gave you free NBC.com streaming.

[Pyxl101]

I thought that Facebook claimed that anyone can make apps available in Free Basics:

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org

> Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it.

> In order to make your website display properly within the Free Basics Platform and be accessible to people on all types of phones and data plans, your mobile website(s) must meet certain technical conditions created by the Free Basics proxy. [...]

Granted, I don't know how difficult it is to get a service included, but I've seen them mention a number of times that they intend enrollment to be open to anyone. The participation page seems focused primarily on technical issues like how easy the site is to proxy and cache, in order to serve a bandwidth-light version.

[ucaetano]

The content of your app is also subject to Facebook's Terms of Use:

> Developer participation on the Free Basics Platform, including the information submitted with your application, is otherwise governed by our standard legal terms. Collectively, our standard legal terms and these supplemental terms are the entire agreement between you and Facebook relating to Free Basics, and any terms of use for your service will not apply to Facebook.

Which essentially makes FB the gatekeeper of the internet.

[nileshtrivedi]

Facebook competitors like Google, Twitter, Telegram are all conspicuously absent from such a good opportunity. Could it be because the terms and conditions are actually prohibitive?

[madaxe_again]

It's irrelevant - they're selling it as "the internet", but this is actually a regulated walled garden over which they have complete control. You may want to have a read about Net Neutrality and what it means - if your ISP can choose which sites you can and can't visit, can choose which content you can and can't read - that's not "free" or "open". It's "closed" and "closed".