Vlad Savov for The Verge, full of quotable passages:
On the surface, it seems like a net positive for India and for humanity, bringing more connectivity and information to people who might not otherwise be able to afford it. But every good thing comes at a price, and in the case of Internet.org, that price is net neutrality.
Responding to criticism about Facebook serving its own commercial interests under the guise of philanthropy, Zuckerberg says, “We’re doing Internet.org to serve our mission of connecting the world rather than trying to make a profit anytime soon. We could make much more money from advertising to rich people than we’d make from advertising to people who can’t afford internet access.” And yet, his solution to a shortage of internet connectivity is to provide access to only a small, Facebook-dominated segment of the web [emphasis added].
Like a shrewd marketer, Facebook is investing in associating its name with a good thing — the internet — and establishing that as a permanent and indelible connection in its users’ minds. But it’s an effort that benefits only a select few beyond Facebook, and the company has kept quiet on the specifics of how it selects Internet.org services and who is paid what.
When we buy Facebook’s free internet, we pay for it with our freedom to explore and exploit the full breadth of the web. Instead of enabling Ghanaians, Indians, and Colombians to create their own internet tools and services, Internet.org is converting them into captive consumers. The whole world would benefit from greater access to the internet, but it must be the whole internet, not just Planet Facebook [emphasis added].
That pretty much sums up Facebook for me. Twitter isn’t far behind, but at least Twitter isn’t pursuing endeavors under the auspices of helping people, while concomitantly them.