Facebook saw the "we're saturating the number of people on the Internet" wall years ago. That's why they zero-rate the app, and integrated SMS notifications and had J2ME and SIM apps.
They also have a "free basics" program which partners with networks (I think primarily developing countries) and gives people access to Facebook with no network/bandwidth costs. Seems like a win-win? https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org
Gotcha. I'm not sure it's a win-win, but it feels crazy to say that giving 0 free sites is better than giving Facebook free. It's a level playing field, sure, but consumers are worse off than if they had free access to Facebook.
In my opinion, opportunity is better than equality.
A lot of people think this way, Zuck included, and that's what makes the decision in India so interesting and, at least for me, correct.
FB does not categorically improve the quality of life for its users. FB provides connectivity to others... this is good. But if the cost is making you think the world is askew from what it really is because all you see is what FB's feed shows you... well that's a steep price that nobody, even the poor, should be asked to pay.
I wasn't suggesting it's failing. The point I was replying to was if Free Basics is a "win-win" and I'm saying there's at least one large democratic nation that thought otherwise.
I envision that Facebook really wants to become the wechat of the world. From the lessons of Trump, if mark becomes the president I see him really pushing FB politically.
