To those without much history about Internet.org, net neutrality, as well as the controversy around it, Facebook did an outstanding job, presenting itself as a valiant crusader for “digital equality” — a fine turn of phrase that’s all the semantic merit of “net neutrality” and is thus well-equipped to go head to head against it.

This isn’t an easy issue of one virtuous, crusading corporation as well as a lot of villainous/misguided activists way from what Facebook would have everyone believe. Facebook’s position is that “some accessibility is preferable to no access”, and the Facebook curated list of sites which can be obtained under Free Basics will be an opening to the world wide web for the users who can not manage to pay for information, and that they’ll eventually graduate to using all of the web, when they can manage to do so.

While there’s clear value in the “some accessibility is preferable to no accessibility disagreement”, Free Fundamentals is the least easy, least transparent and least fair manner of going about supplying “some accessibility”. For comparison, one need merely look at Grameenphone in Bangladesh, where Mozilla and Telenor have tied up to provide a low cost smartphone and connection which enable its users 20MB of complimentary, unrestricted access daily. The user can simply determine the best way to make use of that information that is small.

To accomplish precisely the same ends, Facebook has a curated listing of websites which have information-light variations that need to conform to particular standards, and at the close of the day must satisfy with the acceptance of Facebook. Some accessibility is preferable to no access, but some kinds of “some access” are much better than many others.

Facebook’s strategy of supplying “some accessibility” prerogatives Facebook and whomever it approves of, and permits it to improve its core business goal, which is to have the ability to coopt, track and serve up the next billion individuals, to advertisers. I don’t have any beef with Facebook pursuing that goal, but to then go on and frame their initiative as an altruistic movement to join the unconnected, especially when other approaches to accomplish exactly the same goal without breaking web-neutrality are accessible, is disingenuous at best.

Yet more, it is a handy misrepresentation of the scenario. Those writing in are protesting the unique features of Internet.org/Free Principles which are dangerous in the future, specifically the breach of web-neutrality, the shortage of security and seclusion for a user population that mightn’t promptly be informed enough to make selections in that respect, and the quite real chance that for people who can’t actually afford to cover information, Facebook and its approved listing of websites, will seem to be all of the world wide web.

Facebook could react to its detractors by restructuring Free Principles to be fully see-through, non-discriminatory, and safe, and by supplying advice that is upfront about its own consequences and solitude to its subscribers. Even in this instance, it will be a large triumph for its business goals, because an overwhelmingly large percent of people that get online, get on Facebook (and often select cat videos over seclusion).

In the event you needed one clinching reason a Facebook-restricted Free Basics is not safe, it is offered by this particular action of theirs definitely. Facebook isn’t scared to utilize it and has tremendous clout and resources means fair or foul, to improve its interests. This really isn’t the behavior of a responsible or fair minded corporation, as well as a precious principle like web neutrality shouldn’t be undermined to serve the interests of a corporation that not only seeks to command a big chunk of the world wide web, but is also unafraid to utilize that control to mislead individuals and smother criticism.