I'm fine with balanced opinions but there is no need to do the back and forth multiple times through the same article.

They're trying to make some very serious criticisms without detracting too much from the fact that Internet.org actually got off their arses to do something about the digital divide.

I think its fair. They're trying to give some degree of credit where its due, as opposed to an all out attack. Its hard for me personally to agree with an all out attack piece when I'm conscious of the seemingly good intentions of the project (conspiracies aside).

    We have confidence that it would be possible to provide a 
    limited free Internet access service that is secure, *and    
    that doesn't rely on Facebook and its partners to 
    maintain a central list of approved sites*. Until then, 
    Internet.org will not be living up to its promise, or its name.

On one hand, you are helping them compared to how others treat them. On the other hand, you are exploiting them for your own gain.

Even ignoring the morals of offering a bad deal to someone who only has worse deals to choose from, there is the fear that such an actor would eventually evolve to lock out others who want to help without (or with less) exploitation.