... Sounds much like doublespeak. There's no actual addressing any concerns. Just "think of the chil^H^H^H^H villagers!" "We fully support net neutrality." ...

... Sounds much like doublespeak. There's no actual addressing any concerns. Just "think of the chil^H^H^H^H villagers!" "We fully support net neutrality." ... "Internet.org doesn’t block or throttle any other services" So if I try to access my own website via Internet.org, how does that work again? Also note how instead of saying "certain websites", Internet.org provides access to "basic internet services". Slick try to redefine "basic" in terms of his own website. He says it "lowers the cost of accessing the internet" ... but that's not really true, since you cannot access the Internet via this system, only select services. "saying that offering some services for free goes against the spirit of net neutrality. I strongly disagree with this." No two rational people can disagree (with the same priors). Therefore saying you disagree is a cute/passive aggressive way of saying "you're wrong" or "you have wrong information". There is no doubt that "zero rating" aka "get FB for free" is directly against the concept of net neutrality. You can say you "disagree", but that's simply incorrect. On the plus side, at least his piece was rather heavy handed so hopefully FB's goal will be clear to others and continued opposition. (Hopefully...) P.S. The Internet is usually capitalized. (I know, I'm old or something.)