&gt; I have yet to see research that providing a zero-rating service is harmful as you suggest.<p>&quot;Internet.org provides access to a subset of the internet that Facebook chooses to pay for.&quot;<p>&gt;  Last time I glanced through the agreement, Facebook is just trying to avoid paying for HD photos and video downloads, which would increase the cost of Internet.org beyond feasibility.<p>This could be achieved by choking bandwidth, which would be easier to implement, simpler, and more transparent. Instead, you get stuff like:<p>&quot;In order for your content to be proxied as described above, your URLs may be re-written and embedded content (like javascript and content originating from another domain) removed. In addition, secure content is not supported and may not load.&quot; [1]<p>Let&#x27;s be absolutely clear here: Facebook wants to control what content gets into Free Basics and how it&#x27;s presented, and is willing to make security impossible in order to do it. This enables both censorship and mass surveillance controlled by Facebook and whoever is willing to pay them.<p>&gt;  The users of Internet.org get free access to Facebook as well as the other services being provided and that doesn&#x27;t detract from the service or make the whole initiative evil.<p>It&#x27;s not the things users get access to that I&#x27;m worried about, it&#x27;s the things they <i>don&#x27;t</i> get access to, and who else gets access to those user&#x27;s data.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developers.facebook.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;internet-org&#x2F;participation-guidelines" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developers.facebook.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;internet-org&#x2F;participat...</a>