Answering all of your concerns.

It is not at all ironic that people who are against providing electricity for free are against this. The key difference is on whose money. Free electricity with no form of sustainability in the long term on taxpayer’s money is bad. If say Reliance wants to provide free electricity and run a business by monetizing it through other means it isn’t. Sustainability of the business is the key factor.

1. Maybe the person would prefer having access to babajobs than having no access to any site. In any case, why not the consumer make the choice than you making it for them?
2. I don’t think they would do it because that isn’t sustainable in the long run. They need to make money to support it. Google’s planned wifi at the railway stations seems to be close to what you are saying. It is up to the provider to figure out how they can manage the costs.
3. No, not at all. It isn’t a problem unless the ISP market is a monopoly or is not competitive. If there are 50 ISPs, it is not a problem.
4. So, you have made the choice that using Facebook is worth giving your private data. Someone else may make a choice that using 2 websites is better than paying for internet. Why don’t you let them make the tradeoff? Would you like it if someone told you that Facebook has to be charged and you cannot get on it even though they want to give it for free?
5. Agree. How is introducing more ISPs restricting their choice? It only increases it.