Mark Zuckerberg's Free Basics argument doesn't address conflicts of interest
It's odd that the article regards privately owned schools, hospitals, and libraries as absurd abominations.  Private schools are a huge part of the American education system, and they're not the problem. Even when the funding is public, lots of jurisdictions in the US are moving <i>toward</i> privately owned schools, i.e. charter schools.  The Catholic Church runs private schools around the world and is widely lauded for it.  A big portion (most?) of the best American universities are private.  80% of hospitals in the US are private.  Private is good.<p>Can someone explain for me how Free Basics would be harmful for anyone?  If there's an alternative way to bring full internet connectivity to people who currently can't pay for it, wouldn't that alternative beat Free Basics in the market?  The article briefly mentions "public internet access" as an alternative, but the Indian government has already failed the 400 million Indians without electricity, and 1 billion without internet.  "The Indian government can probably get the money somewhere" reveals a total misunderstanding of the scale of the problem and places a laughable faith in the Indian  government, the incompetence of which is in fact the single largest factor holding India back. Why not give market solutions a chance?