I would feel better about this initiative if it were being carried out by a neutral party (a charitable organization for instance) rather than Facebook. As it is I don't think it's a good idea. It has the potential to undermine the real internet by trapping people in "good enough" service and the motives are highly suspect. I'm hopeful governments will tend to agree.
It's providing them a free service that is by your own words, "good enough" when they currently have nothing, and you are calling that a bad thing? Come on.
What point are you trying to make? For clarity, I haven't said anything about perfect. That being said "good enough" and good are two very different things, especially with internet.org defined as "good enough". Let's have internet.org offer a non-walled, non-discriminatory service and I'll be happy enough to call it good, even if it is far from perfect.
