Facebook is not being altruistic here, and there&#x27;s no such as thing as free. Whenever a merchant offers &quot;free shipping,&quot; they&#x27;re just manipulating the customer and the cost is built in elsewhere.<p>When facebook offers &quot;free internet,&quot; whatever benefits it provides, the cost is hidden and built in elsewhere in Facebook&#x27;s business model. Which means such a free internet that facebook is supposedly altruistically providing is actually being paid for elsewhere, whether in higher ad costs for India or some other area of their business.<p>This means facebook is essentially skirting net neutrality by indrectly paying for people to only have access to Facebook.<p>This is on top of anticompetitiveness of the move. Giving anything away for free destroys natural competition in the ecosystem. See the case of TOM&#x27;s shoes giving away free shoes and destroying local shoemakers.[1]<p>Their tactics here makes it justifiable for a country like China to block Facebook. Imagine if Facebook took over China, and started blasting political messages with ulterior motives to 2+ billion people, trying to influence them for corporate gain.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;freeexchange&#x2F;2014&#x2F;10&#x2F;economics-toms-shoes" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;freeexchange&#x2F;2014&#x2F;10&#x2F;economic...</a>