Some of the arguments here are not very well thought of. - It's to make money/ it will limit access to other competitive services/ etc. Think of the market this is reaching. Mind you there are no pictures or videos in the internet.org version iirc. This is not the market you'd want to reach for your services/ads as not only tge experience is limited, but also these are the people that can't even really afford internet. If it was for money/ world domination/ jeopardize the purity of internet the target audience would be different.

- it should be access to all internet. I think we all agree on that, including Zuckerberg, however it is childish to think that an ISP would be willing to work with that. The greatest challenge in a project of this magnitude is working with the local service providers. They are the ones that need to be convinced, and you'd need to work with to make this happen. I think a good exercise for everyone here is to think, how would I solve the problem of internet illiteracy.. Realistically?

The "watch an ad an get internet" does not sound to me as appealing for the service providers. They are basically using internet, to give internet, to someone that can't afford internet? I don't think this initiative would be succesful.

- "This is only a hinderance and hurts when internet is eventually accesible to everyone." This is what Paul Graham calls indefinite optimism. How exactly do you think this will just happen? The answer is little by little working with the service providers, phone manufacturers, etc. which is what fb does, and the fact they actually got something that everyone is willing to accept is pretty unbelievable.

So instead of idealistically oposing something that would make disconnected people lives better, how about thinking how would you solve the problem? Align all the major players over an initiative that would hardly lead to high revenues.

And if you doubt the usefulness of it how about you check the access it gives. I personally consider wikipedia pretty useful.