1. There is no contradiction in using a platform and criticizing its policies. Also, the fact that Facebook controls a story’s reach is an even stronger signal that a person’s first internet experience should NOT be restricted to just Facebook. http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/
2. Rather than a bunch of rich people preventing internet access for the poor, this situation is more like cigar smoking fat-cats in a backroom deciding what the internet should look like for the next billion people on the internet (reductive imagery works both ways).
3. I’m sure you wouldn’t say everyone who doesn’t like people starving should starve to show their sympathies. But you’re right, we (through the govt) should be pumping money through BSNL to expand connectivity in the country. That’s certainly a more sustainable option than getting 10 people an internet connection. Also net neutrality supporters aren’t denying poor people internet. It’s internet.org that is deciding what the internet should look like for poor people.
4. Internet.org would be a great initiative if it provided free data rather than free access to only a couple of sites. The question isn’t whether a publisher can become an ISP. It’s whether or not an ISP can prefer a couple of sites over others.

The consumer’s “choice” here is between free stale bread and an expensive slice of cake. Is it a fair one?