You're probably right, I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt, they have been trying very hard the past few years to recreate their image and implement privacy controls.

I saw recently one person talking about when you delete your Facebook account it's a true delete rather than a soft-delete, but I'm not sure how true that is, stuff like that goes a long way and matters to me.

> I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt

You can't give them that benefit because their company culture was founded on "They trust me — dumb fucks" [0]

[0] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

This has got nothing to do with net-neutrality. Say my workplace internet has blocked porn, does that mean my workplace internet is non net-neutral and harmful ? On the contrary it is more productive.

When you are are getting something for free, someone else is spending money for you and clearly getting something for free is better that getting nothing.

In case of Comcast etc. this is not the case because these service providers use public land and create monopolies with the help of government.

A workplace is not a regulated Internet Service Provider.

Another word for "getting something for free" is price-dumping. History has many examples of this tactic being used to destroy competitors.

If someone wants to "sponsor" free traffic, they should be required to provide some percentage of that traffic for accessing the open internet, i.e. they cannot pay to remove choices from consumers.

Would it be ok to air-drop Go Language books in one country and Swift Language books in another country? Telecommunication and culture industries are regulated for good reasons.

Precisely Internet.org is also not regulated internet service provider. Price-dumping is a perfectly acceptable strategy.

Internet.org has contracts with regulated national telcos. The customers of those telcos do not have employment agreements with Internet.org's founding companies, i.e. they are not in a workplace relationship.