Wow, the article is terrible and doesn't do anything to express the hypocricy of Facebook. Heres why Facebook and Zuckerberg are hypocritical - Freebasics and

Wow, the article is terrible and doesn't do anything to express the hypocricy of Facebook. Heres why Facebook and Zuckerberg are hypocritical - Freebasics and net neutrality. Freebasics is a closed system, with FB as the gatekeeper. In its previous iteration it was internet.org. Only the utter debacle (for FB) that was the Indian Netneutrality debate, caused FB to rebrand to the more accurate :freebasic. Before that they were happy to portray themselves as providers of the internet to the poor. When asked why they needed a model that created them as gatekeeper, instead of cheap/free/advertizer supported internet with actual openness, they tweaked their model but were tone deaf to the gatekeeper role. With NN, they support it in the states in order to combat telecoms. In India and in other places, they support telecoms and Anti NN positions to further their ability to be the only site users go to. Zuckerberg is old enough to know the difference between walled gardens and open internet, as are most of his engineers. Discussing hypocrisy would indicate some sort of moral center in the first place. Facebook is for itself, and is a creature for the perpetuation of its existence.