I'm not a rich american, you're a bit presumptive there.

I'm from Peru. I came from a well-off peruvian background, and I've seen the families of my rich peruvian peers as well as foreigners exploit the hell out of poor people in that country, all while claiming that anyone who wants to enforce some minimum standards or think long-term, is "condescending", or "paternalistic".

I've put forward the case of America being hooked on an endless and destructive addiction to cars. I can bring up many others, such as the existing ones with opioids, or unhealthy food. What do you put forward? How many drug pushers have a healthy relationship to their clientele, and help them knock the habit as soon as possible?

Sorry for presuming you are a rich American instead of a "well-off" peruvian. You are the one comparing drug dealers to free Wikipedia, so I don't know where to begin the argument as you already went off the deep end!

It's not free Wikipedia that's the problem, it's free Facebook that's the problem.

Stop being disingenuous, you know full-well that's what Zuckerberg was aiming for with `internet.org`.

Lets be honest here. Wikipedia isn't going to be funding the expansion of internet networks on the basis that it can fund priority zero rating. It will be American or Chinese consumer facing companies with massive bankrolls and business models built on addictive consumer engagement. Think Amazon fighting Aliexpress for priority access to the Iraq marketplace on the basis of network access, rather than efficiency in product logistics.

The idea that NN vs. non-NN network proliferation is an intrinsically paternalistic battle is flipped on its head when cast in real terms.

It's revealing how you suddenly change the example from "Facebook" to "Wikipedia".

What if instead of wikipedia it was zombo.com?