This is the heart of your argument. You believe that this undermining net neutrality, and it probably is. I don't see why there should be a different set of rules of paid services and those with a different model that doesn't involve direct payment from the user. As you can probably guess, I am not in support of net neutrality, so this is where we differ. I respect your resolve on the issue especially when faced with what seems like a hypothetical. I could see someone arguing against net neutrality by asking "hypothetically, under net neutrality I would be unable to offer free internet with limited functionality to the poorest people in the world...".
I believe this is a better argument to make and the rest is really an unnecessary distraction and can often be interpreted as condescension of the poor.
Yes, and this is the argument Zuck is trying to make (well, he's sort of skirting it but it's a similar core argument), and this is the argument I've been refuting here -- like I said there are models (Aircel, Gigato, Grameenphone) which have worked which solve the free internet thing without impacting net neutrality or privacy. This is not a hypothetical.
I see that you don't care about net neutrality -- a valid opinion to have. But here we have multiple solutions to the same problem, one of which impacts net neutrality -- something which a lot of people care about (and others, like you, don't). All other things being equal (they aren't, but there aren't any other compelling arguments for facebook's solution), shouldn't we choose the neutral solution? If you don't care about net neutrality, the solution picked won't matter. But this is a solution agreeable with the people who care about net neutrality. So everyone's happy, except Facebook.
I do know many of them. I don't think it's condescending to say folks will have a "It's free, why not?" attitude because many people (including me) has that attitude -- it wasn't a statement of the attitude of the poor, it was a statement of the attitude of people.
> I don't see your point. Who cares what Facebook is paying for or their involvement.
The point is that Facebook's involvement is an addon to an existing system that could have worked on its own. This point was to support the next bit about "deviously inserting itself".
> Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system in human history.
Another non sequitur. I wasn't saying capitalism can't/won't help poverty. I was saying full capitalism on basic needs is a bad idea. Even in the US these services are government controlled or highly regulated. Market forces aren't magic fix-everything solutions.
> I'm not asking you to do anything.
The "you" here was a general thing directed at Free Basics supporters and Mark.
> By all means, if you and others think there is a better model, implement it as a competitor and allow people chose.
It's been implemented partially (Aircel, Gigato, Grameenphone, not all in India). My point about full capitalism and market forces remains.
Note that Facebook's model requires a sacrifice of net neutrality from the get-go. Even if the market forces decide against Free Basics, net neutrality is long gone by then.