Zuckerberg non si capacita che l’India possa pensare di bloccare Free Basics, al punto che in “The Times of India” scrive:

We have collections of free basic books. They’re called libraries. They don’t contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.

We have free basic healthcare. Public hospitals don’t offer every treatment, but they still save lives.

We have free basic education. Every child deserves to go to school.

Free Basics è Internet.org sotto un altro nome. Internet.org è una versione debole di Internet, che dà accesso a pochi siti selezionati, fra cui Facebook (se proprio voleva, poteva evitare di inserire se stesso nel pacchetto). Non è la rete, ma la porzione di rete che Facebook ha deciso di includere nel pacchetto di siti accessibili. Crea una situazione di svantaggio per chiunque voglia competere con Facebook, come scrive The Conversation:

Free Basics clearly runs against the idea of net neutrality by offering access to some sites and not others. While the service is claimed to be open to any app, site or service, in practice the submission guidelines forbid JavaScript, video, large images, and Flash, and effectively rule out secure connections using HTTPS. This means that Free Basics is able to read all data passing through the platform. The same rules don’t apply to Facebook itself, ensuring that it can be the only social network, and (Facebook-owned) WhatsApp the only messaging service, provided.

Yes, Free Basics is free. But how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations, or an electricity provider that will only power certain home electrical devices? There are alternative models: in Bangladesh, Grameenphone gives users free data after they watch an advert. In some African countries, users get free data after buying a handset.

La Electronic Frontier Foundation, mesi fa: Internet.org non è sicuro, non è neutrale, e soprattutto non è la rete.