This is what a lot of partisan media commentary gets wrong, since they tend to focus on "So-and-so is a liberal/conservative, therefore everything they say is tainted. We can't trust anything they say!" When in reality, there are facts to be had, and you can investigate them, and ignore who is saying what. The taint argument is only a good heuristic when you're completely uneducated about a topic.
They said that it isn't fair that some companies are restricted from using your private information, but huge companies like Google, Facebook and others have free access and free reign to with it what they want. Instead of making your data private from all the companies, they instead did THE EXACT OPPOSITE and made all the private information readily available to everyone and every company who wants it.
I think it could be argued that sponsoring 3rd party services required to access Facebook under the condition they won't be used to access competing sites is a novel form of dumping. Clearly the goal is to get poor people hooked on FB before they can afford to buy actual Internet access and decide for themselves.
And suggesting that this monopolistic propaganda initiative can be called "Internet Basics" is a direct affront to the Internet itself.
If Facebook actually wanted to be neutral they would sponsor unrestricted access with small data cap. Still good enough for browsing Facebook and Wikipedia but without the vendor lock-in.