&gt; Everything is political, because everything affects people.<p>You might be unaware of the fact that you are standing on the shoulders of giants. This believe of you is reproducing a Montesquieuian perspective on civil society instead of for example a Tocquevilleian where there is a public&#x2F;private distinction. The latter (the one you&#x27;d probably consider &quot;extremely naive&quot;) is also the base of basically all contemporary liberal democracies.<p>&gt; [...] you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic [...]<p>Sure. Without the political codes, this whole subject is rather a non-topic.<p>People in industrialized countries developed a high sensitivity regarding restrictions on internet access. This value set conflicts with many infrastructural ambitions of public and private actors as in this case Facebooks &quot;Free Basics&quot; project. That&#x27;s it.<p>All those dystopian outlooks, the alleged evil intentions on both sides etc. are only means to enforce the own opinions over the other sides.<p>Ok, so Facebooks wants to bring Facebook (and some fig leafes as Wikipedia) for free to rural India. Net neutrality people want Facebook to not do that. What else? We can make a list; I bet it&#x27;s rather unspectacular.<p>&gt; Quite a few people are claiming otherwise.<p>Right.. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;0vFh092.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;0vFh092.png</a><p>&gt; [...] your suggestions that the market would sort this out.<p>You might want to recheck who you think came up with a market argument, because I think you are mistaking our debate with another.<p>&gt; &gt; size-based exceptionalism
&gt; WTF are you talking about?<p>If you could elaborate on what you weren&#x27;t able to grasp I&#x27;d have the opportunity to explain it further. :)