Internet.org’s offer of access to selected sites and services without information costs has been criticized by over 60 digital rights groups all over the world for, among other things, raising inequality while sabotaging web neutrality.

Backed by Facebook and a few other businesses, Internet.org plans to expand Internet connectivity to the underprivileged all over the world. But its plan to provide select sites and services, including those of Facebook, at no information fees to users, was criticized in India for creating “walled gardens.” The plan has been established up to now in certain nations in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

In response to the criticism, Internet.org before this month started its platform to any low-bandwidth online service which matches its technical guidelines for running on fundamental telephones. Websites WOn’t need to pay to be contained, and programmers will not charge for the information folks use for their services.

Facebook asserts it is not marketing Internet.org for the cash, and is even not showing advertising to its users.

Internet.org misleadingly labels zero-rated programs as the World Wide Web, although users just get access to a tiny part of it, according to letter.

In its technical guidelines, Internet.org has requested the cellular sites that need to come aboard the platform should work in the lack of security attributes like SSL, TLS and HTTPS, which the groups said place users in danger of malicious attacks and authorities surveillance. In addition , they are worried about too little transparency about how user information will likely be utilized by Internet.org and its ISP partners.

The groups have also criticized Internet.org’s strategy of giving users a flavor of connectivity in the hope that they can buy information strategies, as it will not recognize that millions of folks can not afford the strategies. “These new users could get stuck on a different and unequal route to Internet connectivity, that will function to widen–not narrow–the digital divide,” the groups wrote in the letter.

The service provided by Internet.org would be more prone to censorship in relation to the open Internet, as Facebook and its own associates acting as gatekeepers would be more exposed to lobbying or even dangers from authorities and special interest groups to withhold specific content from its users, EFF said.

Facebook said in a statement the business and its own critics share a common vision of helping more people get access to the broadest possible array of services and experiences online.