Why assume they are stupid and unable to make decisions for themselves?
So regulations are important. Partly so because some markets are very difficult for an average consumers to gain full knowledge about. That's for example one of the reasons why we had a financial crisis some years back.
First of all you seem to dismiss the problems I described. Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote with a less subjective attitude. Second you seem for some strange reason think that there is a choice between "pesticide-laced food or malnutrition/starvation". That's a false narrative. Also don't get hung up on pesticides, it was just as an example of lack of education, lack of information, lack of laws, corruption, and other issues that results in a market where the consumer have not got enough information to make a reflective choice.
I don't want to continue down your strange little rabbit hole that doesn't reflect any realistic option or facts of how life is in Cambodia or other similar countries. Given your strange questions I don't think you actually know so much about life in these countries or the issue people face. Seems you rather have some ideological viewpoint that you want to define as a narrative. I can assure you that any solution is not as easy as you think. It's complex issues. So please don't come with any simplistic ideological based statements with questions that doesn't make any sense, and attack me as someone who doesn't want to communicate with you.
"What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?"
Seriously, what are you expecting from this kind of question? Does it provide any value? Does it provide any argument at all? What are you really expecting me to explain to you from this question?
Oh and btw: Cambodia was a educated country with a functional society until the 1960s. Then USA decided to drop US 540,000 tons of bombs on the country killing hundred of thousands people. This resulted in Pol Pot taking over who then pretty much killed everyone with an education and lots more.
Funny how you call other extremists. This is a pure ideological viewpoint that has proven to be wrong in how internet and telecommunications evolved. It was built on standards and it was built on national and international regulations. It's why you can take a phone used in Germany and use it in India.
"3) Zero-rating in emerging markets (e.g. FB in India) is really the only way for many lower income users to afford services at all -- particularly for video services."
What are you basing this on? Data is very cheap and cost has been decreasing rapidly the last years. If you can afford a device that can play internet video then you can afford the data. Having lived in Cambodia over a few years I have witnessed the extreme uptake in mobile phones in a developing country (a very poor one too). A GB of data is about one dollar. It's used by garment factory workers earning about $130/month. It's used by women selling their own produce at the market. We are seeing the same in Myanmar with mobile phones being used along nearly all income groups. It's really obnoxious to see Facebook and supporters making arguments of farmers earning a dollar a day when they try to introduce a closed network. Poor people got 99 problems and paying top dollars for watching a video online isn't one of them. Those who cannot afford data cannot afford a usable phone. If Facebook wants to help these people in India then there is a bunch of ways of doing so that doesn't lock people and countries into a walled garden from a tech giant.